Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 30

< September 29	October 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 speedy delete (A7, by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs)). —David Eppstein 04:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Lister[edit]

Autobio of a non-notable model. Heavily vandalized by IPs almost since creation. No sources to show notability. Delete Sethacus 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silent comedy[edit]

Article was previously a CSD candidate, though it was contested although nothing was done for almost two hours so I move the article to an Afd discussion. Article is about a band which fails WP:MUSIC. I had previously nominated their lone album about an hour ago for lack of notability as well. Delete JForget 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN band. Should have been speedy'd IMO. - Rjd0060 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:MUSIC. -- MightyWarrior 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as appearing to pass WP:MUSIC with a C. They play a non-pop genre, so they need a CD on a recognized indie label, sales on major web sites/speciality shoppes, videos, verifable influence on the genre, and the like. Marginally passes. Bearian 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Articles in genre publications are also needed. Bearian 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German virgin[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, and in particular not one for extremely trivial entries. 2005 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#DICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (WP:NOT). There is no context in this article either. - Rjd0060 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable/well known enough. • Lawrence Cohen 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DICT. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Stables[edit]

This is an album about a non-notable band that is also candidate for deletion. Since the band doesn't seem to meet notability, it sure the album does less, although I'm not making it a CSD candidate nor delete it immediately. However, i suggest to Delete the article per lack of notability. JForget 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormtracker94. /Blaxthos 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any impartial information about this band or its label other than blogs and self-promotion. Accounting4Taste 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as album by deleted NN group. tomasz. 10:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:MUSIC. -- MightyWarrior 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portugalicia[edit]

Virtually unknown neologism, might in fact be an attempt to coin it. Or a hoax. A Google search retrieves inconclusive or unrelated results. As a citizen of Portugal who used to live close to the Galician border, I've never heard of this so-called Portugalicia. Likewise, the flag is a most unfamiliar creation. A rather amusing one as a matter of fact. Hús ö nd 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also noticed that the flag is "self-made" and appears to be a recolouring and slight modification of the Portugese flag in Paint. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. JJL 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Likely a WP:HOAX. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The word is used in its Portuguese / Galician form "Portugaliza" all over the net.

See: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/Galicia/Teatro/marionetas/festival/Portugaliza/elpepuespgal/20070120elpgal_17/Tes http://www.agal-gz.org/portugaliza/ http://br.geocities.com/partido_portugalego/ http://maisala.vieiros.com/nova.php?Ed=53&id=55269 http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/portugaliza-org/ http://odoloeventual.blogspot.com/2006/03/portugaliza.html http://chuza.org/historia/portugaliza-a-partir-do-sabado-na-sala-nasa/ http://www.militar.org.ua/foro/portugaliza-una-injerencia-extranjera-en-espana-t14639.html http://www.redegalega.org/synapsis/226/g/syn226_g.htm http://ivoninho-tomaapalavra.blogspot.com/

and hundreds more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsouza (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Spelled various ways. The musician Hevia is from this region. A real place is per se notable. Bearian 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) OOps, he's not from there, but he's played there. Bearian 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to Neutral per arguments of nom, especially that it possibly violates WP:NEO. Bearian 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism or protologism with a flag - no source that this portmanteau of nearby geographic entities is used notably (the various blogs above show nothing more than a neo- or proto- word that may or may not ever become current} - as for the flag it seems more like to highlight this as a hoax rather than some transnational area striving for recognition. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with some salt.--JForget 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Çokoy[edit]

Non-notable artist repeatedly being created by the article's subject. Invariably it has no content and merely refers to being an artist and then a link to the subject's own website. It's already been speedied 7 previous times so it's about time for AFD now I feel. Reason for nomination: WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:COI -- WebHamster 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom (as one of the previous CSD deleters). Number 5 7 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt I was just doing NP patrol and was going to tag it for speedy delete for no assertion of notability, but wanted to give it time. But, seeing the above comments, no need.--Sethacus 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt: Nominator. The sooner the better before the article's creator falls foul of the 3RR rule by continually deleting the AfD notice. ---- WebHamster 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of interest I went to the weblink given in the article. The art being pushed is a selection of sketches of Disney characters. So it's looking like there's a contravention of WP:EL too. ---- WebHamster 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and be done with it. The poster can't even stop him/her/itself from removing delete notices and has, despite numerous opportunities, refused to make a case for keeping it, instead claiming that some backroom "arrangement" is being made. Yeah right. Plus all of the grounds enunciated by nom. -- Dethme0w 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The original version of this article was an autobiography; writing style leads me to believe that every user that has since created this page has been a sockpuppet. The artist's English is not very fluent, and he doesn't appear to understand the notability criteria, so salting will be the only way to avoid recreation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt, per nominator. /Blaxthos 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:N and WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Toynbee tiles and redirect. This outcome is consistent with the notion that a person who is notable as the result of a single event or phenomenon should have their mention in the context of that topic. Official policy relates this to living persons, but extension to persons no longer alive seems reasonable and logical. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Morasco[edit]

not notable Rapido 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If "some people believe" that he did something, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of an ongoing controversy. — Walloon 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scratching my head here. He may be notable, but, then again, it could be another guy with his name? And?--Sethacus 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Merge and redirect per others arguments to do so.--Sethacus 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My research as a professional genealogist finds only five adults with the name James Morasco in the entire United States (going back several decades). The James Morasco profiled in the Wikipedia article is the only one in the Philadelphia area. Could be "another guy with his name" but very, very unlikely. — Walloon 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless very good reasons given, I count about a dozen contributors to this article, unless they are socks this appears to be legit, and some loose claim to notability. Nothing has been said to rebut it...JJJ999 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you need to look carefully at the "dozen" contributors. They are pretty much all edits of grammar, correcting Wikilinks, stub sorting, etc. The article is almost exclusively written by Walloon; with minor additions from Colinclarksmith, Mdbrownmsw, Dovate (mostly 1 each). There are only 350 Google hits for James Morasco, and a proportion of those would relate to other people of the same name. I think it would be sensible for a paragraph of this entry to be merged into Toynbee tiles, as his name is inextricably linked with the tiles (no-one would know of him if they hadn't read about the tiles, after all). But this entry on its own should be deleted. Rapido 08:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am the "146.148.99.37" who originated the article. I wrote it at work, forgetting that I wasn't logged in as myself. — Walloon 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Toynbee tiles. His notability, such as it may or may not be, is tied to that. Clarityfiend 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Toynbee tiles. Tenuous, unproven basis of notability means he shouldn't have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Toynbee tiles per Clarityfiend and Dhartung. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Tiptopper 10:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax

Anthony Meyers[edit]

Hoax. Skudrafan1 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. No Google verification for a US football player of this name, and references don't verify. Gordonofcartoon 21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as best I can tell, the article is simply a mashing of the articles of real quarterbacks Dan Marino and Marc Bulger. Skudrafan1 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme cast doubt on this consensus, and I have restored the article. If nominated again, please nominate them as a group. Cool Hand Luke 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme[edit]

As the list header says, "A total of 1924 schools (as of February 2007) offer one or more of the three International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes". The chances of us being able to document all of them and keep the list up to date are remote, but handily for us there is a directory online, which means we don't need to offer a permanently out of date and non-authoritative directory. That's a lucky escape - it saves us having to change the policy that Wikipedia is not a directory. Cruftbane 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is just too long, and the majority of schools are redlinks. It would be nigh impossible to keep this remotely up to date. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what lists are for, as an article that groups information into meaningful categories. If the issue is red links, delete them. Heck, if the issue is synchronization, all Wikipedia articles are inevitably out-of-date at some point, so we should delete all articles and just refer people to the internet. Alansohn 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Nascar. I once created a list similar to this and it was speedied, I think it is the same on this subject. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tiptoety 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "just too long" isnt reason to delete an Article, nor is "similar to this and it was speedied". Every school offering this program has hundreds of eager young editors willing to keep this kind of a list up to date. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nascar fan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory or a college guide, lists of every possible program could be envisioned and then we'd have hundreds of lists in an unmaintainable morass of duplication. Why stop at class programs, List of schools offering NCAA division 1 football games to students at discounted prices, List of schools offering smoke-free dormitories, List of schools whose student clinics perform elective abortions, List of schools where ivy covers at least one wall of one hall in which classes are held, etc. If you want to see what schools offer things you want, get a college guide, WP isn't in that line of work (is any encyclopedia expected to be in it)? Carlossuarez46 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with pre-work: Populate Category:International Baccalaureate schools or an appropriate sub-category (if one is needed) then delete after category content matches notable school content of this list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:NOT#DIR —Moondyne 12:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ressu Comprehensive School[edit]

I proposed deletion via {{prod}} but the creator and major contributor (and this is essentially his sole contribution) removed the template. This article comprehensively fails to establish the importance of the place, it lacks independent sources, it is poorly formatted and has spelling errors. Please either massively improve it or delete it. Cruftbane 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a procedural basis. This is an article created today that has clear potential claims of notability which was tagged for deletion with no legitimate effort made to improve the article, in violation of Wikipedia:Deletion process, and seems to be in violation of WP:BITE, as well. Alansohn 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for time being It's been improved since listing, and could be considered notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources cited that establish notability. -- But|seriously|folks 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a n interest multilingual school;. It is probably notable, and the article mainly needs some sourcing. DGG (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what this says... some guy called José Sócrates visited there maybe Kappa 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes he did, from what I can remember of my Portuguese skills. JIP | Talk 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course not every school is notable but this school is, because of both its long history and its connection with the IBO program. JIP | Talk 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, although a good essay could be written about this. DS 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-socio-paradox[edit]

The entire article violates WP:SOAP. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV essay. Violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think POV is not a criterion for deletion, just for editing the article to show the proper NPOV. DGG (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an article, it's a rant. Zero Google hits for the term, suggesting it was made up in order to make an article about it. eaolson 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for this. GlassCobra 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, 100% rant and 100% WP:OR. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Accounting4Taste 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant soapboxing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. krimpet ⟲ 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly[edit]

Basically a smear campaign against Bill O'Reilly. Nearly everything in this article isn't important enough to include in an encyclopedia, and if it is move it into the main page on O'Reilly. A lot of it is original research, not written in a neutral point of view, full of questionable sources, and mainly defamatory material. CO₂ 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a huge, well written, highly referenced article, and probably very informative considering the amount of people who don't like Bill O'Reilly. 90% of Wikipedia isn't "important" enough for an encyclopedia, that's why Wikipedia is so great. Charles 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, this article is not neutral. But this is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit to address the nom issues. The article has controversy because O'Reilly (and those who agree and disagree with him) generate controversy. That's no reason to delete criticism. The article already has many statements in support of O'Reilly and in opposition to his critics. If sections of the article or specific sources that may be POV are removed by consensus, and the result is a very short article, then it can be moved to a section of the Bill O'Reilly page. As it is now, however, it is long enough for a separate article. Ward3001 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPOV problems are not a reason for deletion. After a quick glance through, I was surprised how neutral and non-OR the article was — most "Criticism" articles/sections are full of "some people think..." weasel words, but this seems to be based around notable criticism with decent sources, and I can't see anything obviously non-neutral. Thomjakobsen 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Bill O'Reilly. It seems to me to be a POV fork, and several parts of the article are unreferenced (and therefore potentially defamatory); having a separate article for criticism of him seems to me to be undue weight. However, there is enough sourcing, from reliable sources, to demonstrate that he's attracted some notable criticism; as such, the most prominent criticism should be summarised and merged to the main article, along with the relevant sources. Walton^One 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; Bad faith nomination and most likely an attempt to remove sourced criticism of a right-wing commentator. Are we supposed to assume good faith on an editor who, on their user page, describes Wikipedia as a "smear campaign"? Who includes links on their user page to; Vote Republican · Join the NRA · Bill O'Reilly · Patriot Guard Riders · United States Army? Wake up people. Masaruemoto 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone tell me if I am right or wrong: Did the nominator remove all content from their user page after the preceding statements were made? I looked at the userpage yesterday and it was as described (Vote Republican, etc.). Now it looks like nothing is there. If that's true, I think it tells us even more. Ward3001 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I remember checking it out just after the above comment was made. It had that beautiful picture of a tree which is now my desktop wallpaper... Thomjakobsen 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. And then in a comment below he sarcastically whines because he's accused of a bad faith nom. If I had any doubts before, I'm now convinced it's a bad faith nom. Just an attempt to force a POV when confronted with overwhelming opposition. Ward3001 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is very neutral. I think editors there have done a good job trimming unnecessary material and fairly and neutrally addressing all points of view. Croctotheface 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim heavily and merge seems very wise to me. Criticism articles are a plague, and criticism articles on living individuals doubly so. Genuinely significant criticisms can be covered in the main article, generic "we disagree with him" bleating by is opponents can be taken as read. Cruftbane 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Masaruemoto. Definitely bad-faith nom. GlassCobra 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got 66 references. If you think there's original research or pov then remove or fix the specific problems not try and get the whole thing deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Well sourced article. I agree with Masaruemoto. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to Bill O'Reilly. I agree with Cruftbane above. I don't see how a Criticism article is encyclopedic in nature, but mentioning in the subject article would be more than appropriate. --Sc straker 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep no reason at all for this to be deleted. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep- groundless AfD —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - bad-faith nom. No reason for deletion. Per all above. Tiptoety 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge This afd may have been premature. Most of the article's "waffle" has been weeded out. It probably needs more trimming which should have been debated first before proposing afd or merge. Also one comment, while I have no problem including criticisms in articles, if similar sourced criticisms like this one were put in other articles it would be quickly reverted especially with living persons. It would be good to have a consistent approach toward how to include criticisms to avoid any systemic biases. MrMurph101 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outrageous inherent POV. No way to balance it within an article like this. Total violation of the basic tenants of Wikipedia. If the nom considers WP a smear campaign, articles like this go a long way to proving it. DGG (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What a surprise, DGG voting the opposite way to me!JJJ999 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and apparently differently than a number of other people too. They don't seem to mind :). I'd hardly write what is obviously going to be a small minority dissent just to add to the number of times I disagree with one particular WPedian? I write such dissents first, to avoid WP:SNOW on matters which need serious consideration-- in the hope that others will see the discussion and think about it & express their views, whatever they may be, and, second, in the hope of showing what some of the problems are to those who will work on the article subsequently. And sometimes I even convince someone, and it may eventually affect the way of thinking on articles like these. DGG (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does have some serious WP:NPOV problems, but that's a cleanup job, not a deletion rationale in this case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although most editors here have supported keeping the article, I want to briefly lay out a case against merging and explain why this article should exist as a standalone. First, basically all the material there is verifiable and important to the subject. In some cases, these criticisms could meet or exceed notability guidelines to have their own article. O'Reilly has a confrontational, controversial, and outspoken style. Aside from material O'Reilly produces himself and related Fox News promotions and cross-appearances, much of the media coverage of O'Reilly has centered on these feuds, criticisms, and controversies. The sourcing is impeccable, and I'm confused about which items there pose BLP problems. Most of the sections are exhaustively footnoted, and the others have unambiguous and verifiable attributions within the text. To the idea of a "POV fork", I think you'll find that, for the most part, all points of view are represented neutrally and fairly in this article. if there are places where that is not the case, I'm confident that it would be a relatively painless fix. Therefore all or nearly all of the content in this article deserves to be in Wikipedia. Could everything there go back into Bill O'Reilly? Not without overwhelming what's there already. That's the reason it was split off in the first place. This is a clear keep. Croctotheface 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep suggest closure WP:SNOW. Should not be merged. Was bad faith nomination --Statsone 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why was this nominated? No reason to delete. V-train 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definite bad faith nomination MissingNo 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right, I'm a complete bastard. Citing valid reasons like WP:POVFORK makes it a bad faith nom. Oh, I'm a dumbass. CO₂ 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Many of the numerous controversies revolving around O'Reilly are infamous and certainly deserving of an entry in wikipedia. Indeed, this was split off from the main article in the first place simply because there are so many controversies to detail it threatened to overwhelm the main O'Reilly entry. As is, the article is factual, well sourced, and seems to continually maintain NPOV. I see no reason at all to delete.-Hal Raglan 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done, well written. • Lawrence Cohen 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the only other option being merge, and it's too large for that. Artw 17:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ontario Alternative[edit]

The result was delete and redirect to Reform Party of Ontario. A Train^talk 14:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second nomination for the article. The party is not running any candidates in the upcoming Ontario election, and nomination for candidates has closed - besides, even if they were to nominate candiates, the party is not recognized as official by Elections Ontario. Furthermore, only three sources on the party exist (one being the party's website), which leads me to believe that this is a vanity page.

The past nomination failed as it was believed that the party was seeking recognition and would nominate candidates, which at this point, will not happen. As neither of these requirements have been met, the article should be deleted. Morgan695 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They're not notable, and the article shouldn't be kept. They've done nothing to get themselves recognized by Elections Ontario. GreenJoe 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I would also be open to a redirect to Reform Party of Ontario, but I think the article should be deleted before a redirect. GreenJoe 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Reform Party of Ontario. It took me a little while to figure out what was going on here but The "Ontario Alternative" web page leads one to Reform Party of Ontario, which was a party name that had been blocked for use on the provincial level by the former federal Reform Party, which has now become part of the Conservative Party (whew!). Anyway, Reform Party of Ontario says it is running two candidates in the October election as per their website, which has another misleading name. I've confirmed that both candidates are getting press that says they're Reform Party of Ontario members. I guess (cannot confirm) that they were going to call themselves Ontario Alternative until they found out they could use Reform Party of Ontario, and heaven knows what they're registered with Elections Ontario as. Frankly, I think deletion would be kindest; this party has enough problems without encouraging people to be confused about what they're called. (As near as I can tell, this is people for whom the furthest-right federal government in decades is not far enough to the right.) Accounting4Taste 01:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not a recognized party by Elections Ontario, and has not garnered any press coverage so no reliable sources. -- Whpq 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: national post and ottawa citizen are reliable sources so "no" press coverage is incorrect. having said that, the coverage was not very long-lasting.

Comment - true enough. They managed to make it to the level of being a news item, but there's not real ongoing coverage. -- Whpq 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canuckle 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reform Party of Ontario per Accounting4Taste. Canuckle 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Due to the sourcing concern and the argument that multiple appropriate sources are available, I will add Template:Onesource to the article while removing the AFD template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxcore[edit]

Delete- A rarely used term that is clearly not noteworthy, it seems to be a not often used synonym of riot grrrl. Hoponpop69 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rarely used today, but all over the place in the early 90s. It's distinguished from riot grrl, too. Plenty of reputable sources for an article (albeit slim, this was a brief press-directed movement) from Google Books and a few more from Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about providing some sources, of when it was used "all over the place" in the 1990's?

Hoponpop69 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung. Google News finds a number of significant media mentions ([1]). bikeable (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes this from riotgrrrl then?

Hoponpop69 02:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foxcore described Riot grrl bands from California in the early nineties. ' "Foxcore" was a brief fad propelled by West Coast all-girl punk bands such as Hole, Babes In Toyland, L7 and Seven Year Bitch.' [2]. It's definitely a term which was used at the time. Nick mallory 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a redirect to riot grrl then.

Hoponpop69 13:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable buzzword.--Gavin Collins 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out the only article that this links to is List of genres of music: A-F.Hoponpop69 22:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scum punk[edit]

Delete- Article is a couple of sentences of claims which need to be sourced (but are not), and a list of bands Hoponpop69 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. GlassCobra 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Also seems like a neologism.--Sethacus 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about Filthy sex (band)? Bearian 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'A Speedy G11 for advertisement-only.--JForget 00:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECHO 1[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a company, close to advertising, but perhaps just shy of WP:SPAM or WP:CSD#G11, in any case - it fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and with the "Some players find their guns to be just as good as the originals" bit, definitely spam-tinged. Plus, it's a recreation of an earlier deleted article. GlassCobra 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Patrick[edit]

Borderline A7 candidate: although I would argue it's claim at the beginning is enough to scrape by. Even so, it provides no proof that this is true anyway, and is biased. Probably borderline G11 with a COI, too, but it's not really blatant advertising... Google shows errr... not much, "daily patrick" north carolina shows nothing relevent. Otherwise fails WP:N/WP:CORP. Strong delete, as it can't quite be speedied. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it really is an influential newspaper that grew into a website, as the article claims, then it's a bit weird that the website is a 12yo's blog. That said, Broad Creek, North Carolina seems to have a serious problem with duck-feeding. Thomjakobsen 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nonsense, unless the Clarksons (the basic topic of this "newspaper") are really that infuential in...what is it? Broad Creek,NC?--Sethacus 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too trivial. • Lawrence Cohen 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too short to establish notability. --Gavin Collins 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I need more data to show me why this is notable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane R. Monroe[edit]

Non-notable biography. Tagged for notability since August. No references provided to support notability. Article was initially tagged as autobiography, and still reads somewhat like one, also has tone issues. Optigan13 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. GlassCobra 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fellow is nonnotable. The article history shows a mess of multiple COI sockpuppets from a year ago. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 10:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no sources...Iamchrisryan 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st Coast Cartel Records[edit]

Company that could possibly be non-notable. Creator of article claims it is the first record label based out of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and is recognised by the state as a company. Does that meet the notability guidelines? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

There is also an ASCAP verification possible also.

     1ST COAST CARTEL RECORDS  	
     Society:  ASCAP   	
     CAE/IPI No.    533.78.77.21

Contact:

      1ST COAST CARTEL RECORDS
      533 SLOCUM
      SWOYERSVILLE , PA, 18704
      Tel. (570) 332-3956

Rcthreats 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a member of ASCAP doesn't make you notable. See WP:INHERITED NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, upstart record company with 11 ghits (most to their myspace page) and a very small roster.--Sethacus 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then if that is the case then Butter Beat Records,for example, with very little info on thier piece and as far as i see nothing to verify, i even did research on it, stay on.And with me providing the info i have? if i am missing something then tell me Rcthreats 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides minor lapses in English, you make a good case. Not for keeping this article, for deleting the other--Sethacus 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly, Niaz. Nobody's ever heard of it. --Gp75motorsports 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - got speedied before under A7, and this article is just a cut-and-paste with better formatting. shoy 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well delete is, i did research on alot of the labels listed, and have no notablility what so every in thier town like we do here, so to say that no one has every heard of us, and using that as an excuse is a cop-out, obviously a person that does not know the music industry, 90% of independant labels are rarely know until they are swallowed up by the major labels, and then they technically are not independant anymore.....Rcthreats 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanzul Iman[edit]

Contested prod, unencyclopedic, original research and unclear what this is all about Stifle (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a jumble of text and verses from the Qur'an to me. Delete per WP:NONSENSE. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly incomprehensible and peppered with islamic honorifics. Doesn't seem salvageable. --Wasell^(T) 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, lookie there! I was wrong, apparently. It was salvageable. --Wasell^(T) 07:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~, but trim to stub~~ - ~~it's appallingly written and probably incorporating OR~~, but this is a real topic. It's the title of the 1910 translation of the Qur'an into Urdu by Imam Ahmad Raza Khan. I've edited the intro. Gordonofcartoon 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Gordonofcartoon. Hey, is Kanzul Iman is to the Qur'an as Authorized King James Version is to the Bible? If so maybe editors from WP:ISLAM can be notified to help. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note there. It's proving difficult to find - in English anyway - any reliable third-party assessment of its merits as a translation in relation to others. Gordonofcartoon 01:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is Known in English as The Treasure of Faith And it most Widely read and Understood transltion of Quran in the World.Each and Every Sunni Barelwi move to only this translation .Who are Crores in Numbers.See Comprison of First Verse with Yususf Ali and Picktchal's tranlation Feel the Differene and qualities.As it is a Known Fact that the Author of Kanzul Iman:The Treasure of Faith , Imam Ahmed Raza Khan was beside an Scholar of Islam , a Great Jurist Scientist and Author of More than one Thousand of books and Treaties on Vrious Topics .He Proved in Various Researches on him that he had Knowledge of All branches of Modern Sciences See [[3]]

Neutral Reseraches

[[4]] Columbia University Researh on him [[5]]. [[6]].

Science [[7]]

[[8]] So a Quran translation by Such a Great Person which Challenges Others in its Qualities and has Strong Support Must be on the Wikipedia.Thogh the Article may need some Improvement but it Should not be deleted. Shabiha 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Searh Google and Yahoo for Kanzul Iman and see its Presence .

Very strong keep. One of the most notable modern translations of the Qur'an. Infact, I intend to add sources and fix it soon. Deleting this would be on par with deleting Authorized King James Version.Vice regent 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it needs to be trimmed and all unreferenced / off topic information needs to be removed. gren グレン 05:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep

It is Trimmed Now and Should be Kept .It has Very Much Popularity among Sunni Muslims all over the World and Its Presence on Net is also Note worthy.Msoamu 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salted since it's the third it was deleted--JForget 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KoffeePhoto[edit]

This had a prod, apparently has already been deleted twice speedily, it's a piece of software that doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Bringing it to AFD in hopes of getting a consensus. UsaSatsui 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per me. --UsaSatsui 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:SPAM. Reads somewhat like an advert. If it's already been prod'ed and speedied twice, then it shouldn't be created again. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The re-creation speedy doesn't apply until it's had an XFD. That's part of the reason I'm bringing it. --UsaSatsui 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a considerable number of news related to this software. Carlosguitar 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see 7. 6 of them I can't read, so I won't count or discount them. The last one is a press release. --UsaSatsui 18:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Google News hits provided by Carlosguitar. The businessportal24.com links (hits 1, 3 and 5) are press releases ("Comunicado de prensa", "Communiqué de presse") of KoffeeWare, the company behind KoffeePhoto. They don't qualify for WP:CORP per WP:RS and WP:INDY. The Pressebox.de hit seems to be a press release of KoffeeWare as well. Hits 2 and 7, infos-du-net, are independent of the subject, but I'm not sure it's a reliable source. The same for MacNews. So we've got 4 press releases and three uncertain results. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - This is blatant non-notable spam. The editor is Carl Conrad who is the 'press contact' on their press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like an advert. Delete as spam. Not notable. -- MightyWarrior 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Well, as much as I enjoy the film and song, consensus has spoken loud and clear. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet![edit]

Delete - prod removed, claiming that the song is independently notable. The song, however, is not independently notable. The notability of Rocky Horror does not extend to every song from its score or soundtrack. Does not meet the proposed guideline for songs at WP:MUSIC. I love the movie as much as anyone but the fact that WP:ILIKEIT doesn't warrant an article. Otto4711 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT; just because it's part of a notable TV show doesn't mean its notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because it is unlikely that the song on its own is discussed in independent works. --Paul Erik 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, it is just a stub like most songs on wikipedia. It just needs improvement to meet the proposed guidelines I'd guess, but we'll never know, because someone prefers it not to be improved. over 13000 google hits for this song under this title, covers of the song from productions on all continents and most countries, seems to meet the guidelines, just needs improved.--Buridan 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song isn't notable outside of rocky horror. It's never charted as a single, no bands (major label) have covered it, the song itself is not covered in the news without mention of rocky horror. It just doesn't cut it. It's part of an original thearical musical score and is like having a unique article for every song from Chicago (musical) or Annie. --Torchwood Who? 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what's wrong with that if they are notable?--Buridan 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nothing, if they're notable. A good example would be "One Night in Bangkok" from the musical Chess, the song is probably better known than the musical. Dammit, Janet isn't influencial beyond the musical it was a part of.--Torchwood Who? 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Buridan, can you please give us links to the sources you've found so we can better understand your argument? I haven't been able to find anything besides lists of the song lyrics, Rocky Horror tribute and info pages (about the show in general) and pages about the family guy episode of the same name (which I understand is a reference to the song, but then we have to judge whether it's a reference to Rocky Horror in general or the song itself... which isn't an argument either side will be able to win)--Torchwood Who? 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment all i did was google and then scan the first two pages, you have a good start there, as it covered european covers and australian covers of the soundtrack. of course, 297 including 10 or more independent references of this duet in books.google.com is somewhat significant, too. --13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridan (talk • contribs)

Follow up We must be seeing very different things. In my searches googling the terms "Dammit Janet" "Dammit Janet Song" and "Dammit Janet Cover" nothing comes up except Rocky Horror pages, song lyrics and family guy. I can't find the covers you're talking about. I also can't find anything on google books using the same terms. It's hard for me to find anything at all on the song that's not referencing the sequence in the movie. When I google the song title with the names of the bands I only get track listings on about three sites, but no review or mention of the song from a third party source. Please actually give us the LINKS you're seeing so we know what you're talking about.--Torchwood Who? 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It saddens me to say, but it doesn't satisfy the current guidelines for song notability.--Sethacus 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Alvin and the Chipmunks. Although the broad consensus of the discussion would support a keep closure, the contributions from single-purpose accounts and from IPs masquerading as accounts have been given little weight. There is little support for a delete, and the article is not at present excessively 'in universe', however, the Chipettes have no notability beyond appearing in Alvin and the Chipmunks. The article can safely be pruned by whoever performs the merge. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chipettes[edit]

In-universe article about a fictional girl band in a cartoon series. There are no significant independent sources cited, and most of the article appears to e the work of an editor with no other contributions (very odd, given that this is a fictional group). Cruftbane 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CITE and WP:FICTION. Merge Agreed. Could belong in Alvin and the Chipmunks. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alvin and the Chipmunks, perhaps? --UsaSatsui 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; nothing wrong with an editor only editing one article, maybe their only interest is the Chipettes? Odd, maybe, but not a contributing factor for deletion. Masaruemoto 20:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the editor mentioned above. I'm not the only one to have worked on this article, but I am a major contributor. Frankly, I find this nomination hard to understand. When did the Chipettes become so insignificant as to be deemed un-wiki-worthy? The Chipettes were not only major characters on a popular cartoon series, but are also emblematic of the 1980s and serve as pop culture touchstones for many who grew up in that era. They are at least as significant as Bumblebee and Jazz from the Transformers or the various Sailor Moon characters, each of which still has their own entry. I realize that this argument is pretty much the Pokemon test, but it is valid nonetheless in that the Chipettes are at least as culturally significant and recognizable as the above mentioned characters.

Also, although there is an in-universe section to the article, there is also a substantial section dealing with the characters as the intellectual property of their creators, Janice Karman and Ross Bagdasarian Jr. To characterize the entire article as being an "in universe" article is unfair. In order for someone to have come to that conclusion, they must not have read the whole thing.

I have plenty of independent sources to cite (such as the sources of the quotes of the creators of the Chipettes talking about how and why they came up with their creations) but am not clear on how to do this. If someone would like to help with the editing of the article or show me how to cite outside sources through footnotes, etc., I'd be happy to learn. I am writing this in good faith out of an honest belief that these characters and the article are wiki worthy, not as a "fanboy". The article is not cruft. The_General_Nikos

"Emblematic"? LOL! Not hardly. Cruftbane 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your rebuttal? Emblematic: being or serving as an illustration of a type. The leg warmers, the 80s hairstyles and attitudes...the Chipettes are at least as emblematic of the 80s as Jem and the Holograms, the first gen Transformers, and other iconic cartoons of the era. How are they less significant than say Jazz or Bumblebee or each of the individual Dragonball Z characters which have their own articles? As another user has pointed out, you're quite arbitrary with your definition of what constitutes cruft. Just because something is beyond the pale of your experience that hardly means it's fancruft or unworthy of wikipedia. The Chipettes are instantly recognizable to anyone who watched cartoons in the 80s. A cursory search on google or youtube reveals that they are still widely recognized in the pop culture universe.The_General_Nikos —Preceding

unsigned comment added by General Nikos (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Chipettes are such deep and well-rounded three-dimensional characters, they most certainly deserve their own article!! The Chipettes are a cultural icon of the 80s. The major contributor to the article did a fine job.
Keep Chipettes rock!! There's certainly enough to be said about the Chipettes for them to deserve their own article. Chipettes are more than just a footnote to Alvin and the Chipmunks! HHeinous
Keep As with all the other votes for keep I think that the page should not be removed or merged with the Alvin and the chipmunks article. Yes the person who originally wrote the article has only done the one article but I am sure that if there were other aticles related to this topic she/he would work on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Split Personalities (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a group owner and artist, I say keep. We try the sepeate the Chipmunks and Chipettes to make things simple. Most group for the Chipmunks are for the CHipmunks and CHipettes together like mine but sometimes tend to lean towards the chipettes. Other For the Chipettes have only material for the Chipettes or one of the girls. As speaking with the artist side, most artist I see on the imternet tend to drawn the Chi[pettes. Please, please get the Chipettes seperate. Captainchipmunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.99.6 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this article even nominated? How could wikipedia not have a Chipettes page? In what way is the number of articles contributed to by the page's author a factor? TruthfulPrince —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with the decision to keep the article as is.The Chipettes have proven their popularity and longevity through the years and they deserve their singular place in Wikipedia.With so many memorable cartoon characters falling by the wayside in corporate media's headlong race to create empty, disposable characters to cash in on,we,as the personal caretakers of our varied childhoods,and of nostalgia,in general,must do what we can to honor those characters who stood out in our collective minds,in whatever capacity.Be they hero, heroine,or villian.If they stood the test of time,social change and the hardships of fickle Fate,then they should have a place,an article dedicated to them,not just to showcase,but to honor.
That's why The Chipettes should have their article remain as it is,and should,of course,be enhanced with new data,when available.
Charles Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketchpad (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why Would Anyone Want To Delete Them!!! They Are The Female Counterparts Of The Chipmunks!!! SapientiaSativa 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would anyone want to shut this site down? It is fine just the way it is. Between the Chipmunks and the Chipettes I've noticed that the Chipettes get the most attention in egroups and fansites. The Seville Library tend to get more Chipette fanart and fanfiction stories submitted in. It is only fair that they get their own Wikipedia page too. TheRavenChildca 23:05, 04 October, 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge into Alvin and the Chipmunks. This article would do nicely on a Alvin and the Chipmunks or "cartoons"-themed Wiki, but there's not much one can say about the Chipettes that is suitable for Wikipedia. Most arguments to "keep" center around WP:ILIKEIT. I would like to remind the closing admin that AfD is not a vote. --Action Jackson IV 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument doesn't center around that. The Chipettes are well known cartoon characters. In what way are they less wiki worthy than Kobra Khan, Orko, Cover Girl from GI Joe, or Brain from Inspector Gadget? Please explain. The_General_Nikos —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Nikos (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the admin needs any reminding that this is not a vote. At least as many valid points have been made by those who favor keeping the article as by those who favor merging or deleting it.General Nikos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cruftbane seems arbitrary in his definition of what contitutes "fancruft" (i.e. something of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question). The Chipettes are a far more wide-ranging phenomenon in pop culture than he seems to be aware of. Who is he, in his limited experience, to decide what is cruft and what is not? I, for example, am not a big anime enthusiast, and in acknowledgment of my dearth of knowledge in the area, I would never take it upon myself to purge wikipedia of anime related articles which I considered to be cruft. In my ignorance, I could be weeding out perfectly legitimate articles. --Krb3141 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alvin and the Chipmunks; I like it too, but I don't think there's enough to say about them as a separate topic. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ? 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if Grimace has enough information to warrant an article, I bet there are people who know enough about the Chipettes to provide lots of useful information.--Krb3141 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Grimace does warrant its own article, actually. In fact, the article is currently flagged for merger! Pages like Brain (Inspector Gadget) seem mergable too. I mean, I watched these shows too, but I don't see why we can't discuss them in single articles and only split out where necessary.

I guess the issue then becomes, when is a fictional character significant enough to rate a stand-alone wiki article? The Chipettes are at least as significant as characters like Destro, the Baroness, Orko, and Odie from Garfield, and I don't believe that anyone would challenge the legitimacy of those articles..General Nikos

Comment: For the record, it doesn't look like anyone is actually endorsing deletion, but rather merger, which is quite different in that it preserves content. To editors voting for the status quo, would a merge be so bad? Looking at the articles, we should be able to keep all the existing content with maybe a few formatting adjustments. It's not like we can't split them out into their own article again if the section gets too large. I understand it can be frustrating when things you've worked on end up on AfD, but honestly, half the time it turns into "Articles for Merge" ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ? 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm searching for information about the Chipettes, I don't want to have to read through an article about the Chipmunks (Alvin, Simon, Theodore) to find it. 69.118.38.175 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to assume good faith on everyone's part (and I do so for most of the editors involved on both sides of the discussion) it seems to me that the nomination was placed by someone who sees themselves as being on an "anti-cruft" crusade while they're not really qualified to be a judge of what's cruft and what isn't. In fact, their definition of "cruft" seems rather subjective and they were cited as an example of what not to do on the arguments to avoid page..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ILIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it. This coupled with their flip response to my polite and well-intentioned post leads me to believe that the argument for deletion was advanced in ignorance and that the user who began the discussion was in fact endorsing deletion. The bottom line for me is that the Chipettes are significant, distinctive, and well-known enough cartoon characters to rate their own article (comprable to Destro or Galvatron), and that the article itself does not meet wikipedia's criteria for deletion.General Nikos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of "Cruftbane" on WP:IDONTLIKEIT was actually probably put in before he registered that name (and indeed may have given him the idea); if you look at some of the other fake quotations and their "users" you'll see what I mean (in fact, I wonder if this is why Cruftbane wants his userpage to remain a redlink?) I would feel happier about keeping the current location if there were something "produced" (notionally) by the Chipettes separately from the Chipmunks, or at least where they featured substantially more heavily than the latter (movie, spin-off TV series, album, etc). I tried searching for something along those lines but couldn't find one. If I've missed anything relevant please let me know, I'm amenable to changing my mind if I can be convinced. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fair point. In this regard, it should be noted that the creators of the Chipmunks cartoon actually changed the name of the show from "Alvin and the Chipmunks" to simply "The Chipmunks" in recognition of the growing importance of the Chipettes to the program, and that many episodes were produced which did not feature the male characters at all. Also, some would argue that the Chipettes had the more prominent roles in the feature film The Chipmunk Adventure. All that aside, however, how featured does a character have to be to rate their own article? There was never an Orko show, or a Destro show, etc., but no one would argue that these characters aren't developed enough to rate their own article. Why doesn't this apply to the Chipettes?. P.S. - In terms of my citation of Cruftbane's history, it's only as germain to the discussion as my editing history is (i.e. limiting myself to this article). General Nikos

Keep Although they never had their own show, they certainly qualify as major characters and deserve a unique page on Wikipedia. Part of the fun of Wikipedia is browsing for things that formed part of your childhood, and I can't see why these memorable characters should be denied their own small place here. As was mentioned, they have a large base of fans who are not equally interested in the Chipmunks. Tamajinn21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD may have to be re-listed or extended, to get a better consensus. I was about to close and keep, but saw too many SPA's voting, and with my modicum of experience, I am being timid today. No !vote. Anyone else out there? Bearian 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, even taking SPAs and anonymous users into account, it still comes out a bit ahead for Keep. I wouldn't mind if you extend it (to see if I get a response to my question earlier), but I also wouldn't have a problem if you closed it.

For anyone wanting to stop it being relisted in the future, I should point out that it at least needs some reliable sources to indicate why they're significantly different (and by "reliable" I include "not a Yahoo group"), but that's an issue for further article improvement discussion; a lot of people have commented here that "there are lots of sources", so I'm sure they won't mind volunteering to do the legwork! ;-)

--_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a fair point. I wouldn't mind at all! In fact, I have some of the sources (quotes from the creators of the characters, etc.) saved on my HD. If someone would show me how to add sources (footnotes, etc.) I'd be happy to do so. For example

http://www.mediavillage.com/jmentr/2006/09/11/Jacki-09-11-06/

http://www.roctober.com/roctober/chipmunks.html

General Nikos

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Valley girls[edit]

Completely original research, this article neither quantifies the criteria for inclusion nor contains any reliable sources. Beyond that, we're talking about fiction here -- let's focus our encyclopedia on topics notable in reality.

Delete as nominator. Blaxthos 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC and WP:IINFO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible to say with any authority what should/should not be entered on this list, so fails WP:NOT#DIR, Category #1. Accounting4Taste 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GlassCobra 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like, omigod, delete, totally Unreferenceable listcruft, fer sure.--Sethacus 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, listcruft, original research, indiscriminate collection of information. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Comment "let's focus our encyclopedia on topics notable in reality."??? Be careful the slippery slope, Are you suggesting we should delete all Articles on Charactors in videogames ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Let's not go burning strawmen just yet... ;-) Obviously, many characters in videogames have significant context in the real world, as noted by an abundance of reliable third-party sources -- the article you selected is an excellent example. However, notability isn't inhereted -- the character itself must be part of a real-world commentary in a reliable source to meet our requirements for inclusion. Clearly, many of them do, however more probably do not. My only point is that we all must be dilligent in applying policy and discerning on what we truely believe is notable. In either case, this particular nomination is for a List of articles surrounding fictional characters that someone decided might be "valley girls" -- a big jump from that to the slope regarding all fictional videogame characters. /Blaxthos 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Laughable OR. Operating 09:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like, oh my god. • Lawrence Cohen 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another pointless list. Axl 11:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.C.V. Polytechnic, Jhargram[edit]

"College" that fails to establish pretty much anything. Wizardman 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A1. The three templates take up more space than the article itself. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable college. --Ag ü eybaná 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per CSD A7. Fails to establish notability completely. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Greats[edit]

Fails to establish any notability. Wizardman 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 16:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (NN) - Rjd0060 02:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional online services[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was nominated back in January, with an AfD resulting in no consensus. I am re-nominating this article based on the same rationale. We are not a collection of everything that has ever been, and we're certainly not the place to indiscriminantly list every online service that doesn't even exist. Specific policies: WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:N.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Should've been deleted last time as Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics nor are they repositories of internal or external links . A list of every time someone mentions a phony website or fake email address, even one that's used by the show or movie for promotional purposes, is not encyclopedic. An article on the specific fiction is free to include fictional websites that are used within the fiction and if the site is notable within the fiction then an article on the specific site is reasonable. An article on the use of the internet for marketing would no doubt benefit from a sourced discussion of the phenomenon. But a list of every fictional website ever? Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, unnecessary, unwarranted. Otto4711 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This time it does seem that few if any of this are central to the plot. But they provide a common element in the works discussed. That is a sufficient association. Week association would be say, everything mentioned in the first ten minutes of a movie, or the like; plot elements, even major background elements, are a specific association. I apologize for not being able to do this is alliterative prose. DGG (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From WP:FICTION: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. None of these online services are covered in any third party reliable sources; none of them have any real-world context (or notability). I fail to see how the importance to the plot has any relevance at all on a project that explicitly is not in the business of summarizing plots. /Blaxthos 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nothing but a list, arbitrary and unfinishable.JJJ999 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not arbitrary, it just isn't as complete as it should be. if it were more complete the association would be unquestioned. agree with dgg, only i think there is an even stronger line of association that is possible and needs time to develop. --Buridan 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around for three years. One would think that's been more than enough time for this supposed association to become apparent. Otto4711 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article stays I suggest it gets a much needed reformat. I tried reading it an it's so disorganized that it makes searching for anything specific nearly impossible. i have no idea how to better present the data, but I'll think about it and share my thoughts on the talk page if anything comes to mind. --Torchwood Who? 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is trivia at its worst. Dannycali 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 assertion has been made that the site meets WP:WEB, although this is a borderline case. I checked the links on the article and only one of them links to actual coverage; the rest link to the top page of the magazine in question. In order to prove significant press coverage we really need to know article dates, authors, and the context (verification is impossible without such details). I would say no prejudice to recreation of an article which unambiguously meets WP:WEB. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoodles[edit]

Article about a for-pay tattoo design site. Reads like an advert, fails WP:WEB. No references. Does not adhere to WP:NPOV. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~spam~~ Although the spam has been fixed this is not really encyclopedic and has seems to have notability issues. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant spam. This should have been tagged with a CSD. GlassCobra 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — useless spam. --Ag ü eybaná 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I've reworked this article in a neutral fashion...any suggestions on how I can improve on this? I'm new to this. Thank you for your help. --Lucretiastone 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Above user has rewritten article from neutral point of view. It may still fail WP:WEB, but I'm not exactly sure. Comment Still fails WP:WEB. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Rewritten once again having read more info on Wikipedia requirements. Please review. --Lucretiastone 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it still fails WP:WEB; just not notable enough for Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for sources (looking at this version). There are claims of reliable sources support in the article with links to legitimate magazines covering the trade. The failure here is in specific citation. A chance should be given for an editor to convert the generic magazine links and claims of reliable source support into specific citations. If this cannot be done - it should come back here for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the rewrite its still just an ad. for a nn org. Marcus22 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears to be legit. I have added in-line cites, a stub, and tags. Bearian 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect with option to merge. GRBerry 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Shaw[edit]

Non-notable bit actress. Only source is IMDb entry. Blueboy 96 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — California state women's Skeet Champion. I think she's just notable enough to be retained, or, at worst, merged somewhere. — RJH (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best redirect to Gary Cooper. She is already mentioned in her husband's article. Clarityfiend 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per RJHall reasons.Callelinea 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are only a few articles about world or Olympic champion skeet shooters, so I don't think that a state champion is notable. Clarityfiend 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gary Cooper. I don't see any real notability outside of her most famous spouse, but this is a plausible search term (both names are, really) and we could have more in that article than we do. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable Tiptopper 10:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Narcomey[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Wizardman 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Notable American Indian sculptor whose works are in the Smithsonian. It does not cite any references, so that violates WP:CITE, and could be a memorial to a recently deceased person (WP:MEMORIAL). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I traced every museum mentioned in this article and none of them offers a search result for a "Narcomey". There are a couple of Oklahoma artists whose last name is Narcomey, but none with this first name/initial and date of birth. Don Narcomey is apparently a well-known sculptor but I can't find any link between him and Michael J. I'm afraid I didn't see any reference to the Smithsonian in the article, unless one of the museums I traced is somehow a subsidiary of that organization, so I don't quite understand the above comments; there's a Luther Narcomey in the Smithsonian's holdings and a Jackson Narcomey, a native painter, also listed in Wikipedia. So unless this is some sort of naming error, it can't be substantiated by any available online resources. Accounting4Taste 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Social Security Death Index says he died January 15, 2007; other than that I find no references to him online, not even an obit. No sources to which to attribute notability; fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Tiptopper 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly this article needs work, and attention. Native American artists are underknown and neglected and I would not like to delete an article of a recently deceased Native American artist until I am convinced he was not notable. Modernist 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Changed my vote to delete because the Muscogee nation news dated January 2007 lists Michael Narcomey's death notice and indicates that he was a truck driver, not a sculptor and he was the brother of artist Jackson Narcomey... Modernist 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent researches of those above. Johnbod 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge can be pursued on the talk page if desired. Eluchil404 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Olivette[edit]

Bit actress--not notable. Closing admin should take a good look at the history of the article's creator, Dbzsamuele (talk · contribs), who has a long history of creating articles like this. Blueboy 96 16:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Harry Stockwell, her husband. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Harry Stockwell. Not really notable outside her husband and children.--Sethacus 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Borderline notability imo. Clean up "She later made on last guest apperance on The Phil Silvers Show in 1956." Tiptopper 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per tiptopper, is notable enough with her appearance to make it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leviathan (Farscape). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starburst (Farscape)[edit]

This is a term describing the fictional process of going superluminal in the TV show Farscape. It is unsourced, and makes no claim to notability. It doesn't seem interesting, even in-universe. I prod tagged it, and the tag was removed. SolidPlaid 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could see this becoming a respectable article; Star Trek's article, Warp drive, manages to cover a fictional propulsion technology while still complying with WP's guidelines. Admittedly, there are more sources on (and probably more of a scientific foundation behind) Star Trek than Farscape. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pffffffbt! Star Trek made up physics as it went and loved solving problems by introducing a particle-of-the-week. I wouldn't be worried about less scientific basis. --Kizor 02:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it being merged to Leviathan (Farscape), based on the discussion below. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Leviathan (Farscape), where it belongs. No real need to maintain a seperate article, especially one as short as this. PC78 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into Leviathan, as suggested by PC78. Since only Leviathans can starburst it makes sense to include it there, only splitting it out if the article grows too large. Bryan Derksen 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as Keep and Merge. SolidPlaid 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no sources. Reading the article, it says that light plays about the ship, and then it goes zoom. This would be like having an article about how little lights sparkle on by the Enterprise when it is underway, or an article about how the stars streak out in front of the Millennium Falcon when Hans says, "Hit it, Chewie". Fee Fi Foe Fum 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Leviathan (Farscape) per PC78 seems the most sensible. IIRC, this term was used in almost every FS episode, and was even spoofed in the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Page Camp[edit]

Non-notable bit actress. The article essentially SAYS she wasn't notable. Blueboy 96 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of guest appearances on TV shows, but quantity is not notability. Clarityfiend 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She did some stuff, none spectacular, but imo - notable. Tiptopper 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Keep- per TT.JJJ999 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Wirth[edit]

Exactly four Yahoo hits for this supposed bit actress, and the only reference is to a nonexistent magazine. Utterly non-notable. Closing admin should seriously consider a block or warning of the author, Dbzsamuele (talk · contribs), who has an extensive history of adding articles about bit actors with questionable sourcing to Wikipedia (that is, if he isn't blocked before the end of this AfD). Blueboy 96 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Your comments regarding this editor are unworthy. It's not as if he were a vandal, and he most certainly does not deserve to be blocked for writing valid articles about real people who did have roles in the listed shows. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep About 600 Google hits. This AfD seems a little bit pointy to me. GlassCobra 17:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those 600 Ghits, it looks like three (at most) refer to the subject of the article. Blueboy 96 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS, 600 is very low anyways for a common name bio Secret 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb lists three very minor roles, two of them uncredited. Clarityfiend 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I must also agree with the comment. Callelinea 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:BIO, also no reason to attack the creator in this AFD. Secret 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be civil! Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment. Doesn't appear to have much in the way of notability. That said, I looked at the creator's contributions. They appear to be good faith edits by a user with poor English skills, who may not have been told about our notability policy. That's all. To suggest anything else is incivil and in poor form.--Sethacus 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems not notable. no verifiable reference, the only one listed from a 1956 magazine that cannot be verified... Iamchrisryan 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what 3 movies? No ref. NN. Tiptopper 20:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Bitch[edit]

Non-notable term being used as platform for original research. Valrith 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Definitely agree with nom. GlassCobra 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more as an essay and conjecture than it does address the topic itself. Definitely WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV. Nate 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I do not think it violates WP:OR but it requires a bit clean up to pass the article WP:NPOV. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's OR. -- Magioladitis 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Parrett[edit]

Only claim to notability is that he was an unsuccessful candidate in an election. Fails WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)I[reply]

Delete: Losing one house election doesn't make a person notable. WP:BIO. Iamchrisryan 16:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I vote delete for NN and failing WP:BIO. --Sc straker 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The odd thing is, he's actually got another string to his bow that wasn't mentioned; he's a director of "Hemp Advocates of Texas", which doesn't lend him sufficient notability according to the Ghits (nothing independent, just blogs, self-advertisement and the like). But the Austin Chronicle called him part of a "weak field" of opposition and I have to agree. Perhaps he'll be notable in the future but not quite yet. Accounting4Taste 00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Rostig[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, thus failing WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is still written as if the election hasn't happened yet. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - Not Notable Iamchrisryan 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Hey have fun guys! As far as I'm concerned anyone who ran for Congress is worthy of a few bytes of space in any database. Badges! we don't need no stinking badges!

Hey I'm not trying to be rude, but what kind of rules are these that require deletions?

Grant RostigGrostig 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Also take a look at the history, I was just making a user entry and some other kind person changed me to a "person" or whatever. Grostig 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grostig 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Reliability Block Diagrams (DRBD)[edit]

I'm not sure what this is about, but I think it's original research – a paper or dissertation or thesis of some kind.

The Google hits dance nets fewer than 10 hits each for "dynamic reliability block diagram" and "dynamic rbd", so it doesn't seem to be a widely used term. I have found parts of the text cited in abstracts for an engineering paper, but I can't spend the $35 to see if it's a copyright violation or not. The article's creator, interestingly, is one of the authors of that engineering paper.

However, using "DRBD" in a Google search returns results for DRBD, a separate concept for which there is an existing article. This article's creator deleted DRBD's content, turning DRBD into a redirect to the newer article. (It has since been reverted.)

The author's contact information was on the bottom of the page, and that's been deleted. The first paragraph was cut/paste from this page and has been removed. If it could be cut down to a shorter, readable article, great – but I think it needs deletion. KrakatoaKatie 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. "a new system reliability notation" gives it away almost immediately. The author should also receive a stern warning for blanking content, if he or he hasn't already. GlassCobra 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rótulo[edit]

Doesn't appear to quite establish notability, fails WP:PROF. Wizardman 15:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I just noticed, based on the original creator this article could very well be a WP:COI and be a violation of WP:AUTO. Wizardman 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not notable by WP:PROF guidelines, but I think he's included for his involvement in the "Argentina-Uruguay pulp mills dispute", for which he got the article in La República. I'm not qualified to decide on whether that makes him notable in his locality or not. Thomjakobsen 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment per Thomjakobsen, I think he fails WP:PROF, and absent an article in english on the subject of "Argentina-Uruguay pulp mills dispute" I cannot judge whether 1) the dispute itself qualifies as a historically notable event, and 2) whether his role in it is sufficient for him to inherit encyclopedic notability. My guess is not, but that's just a guess. Leaning towards delete, but pleading ignorance... Pete.Hurd 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards a very weak keep on this one. Do we have an article about this paper mill dispute? GlassCobra 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do understand Spanish. He seams notable from what I have read in his article and references. Callelinea 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the only notability claimed is to do with the pulp mill dispute (which does not yet appear to have an article), perhaps the article should be moved and stubbed to refocus on that? The subject's other achievements do not, as yet, seem to meet WP:BIO. Espresso Addict 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The pulp mill incident seems to have been important enough to merit an article. Like the preceding commentators, I am unsure about Rotulo. It looks like he created and wrote the article himself, which is not necessarily a violation of WP policies (it's just discouraged). But despite that, I wonder whether one very short newspaper article establishes notability. My guess is not and I tend to delete. --Crusio 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borrar segun WP:PROF. Is not notable by the standard at BIO or PROF per the references provided. Eusebeus 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to establish notability. Iamchrisryan 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article asserts, but does not establish, the notability of the subject. --Stormbay 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Stormbay. Marcus22 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willesee family[edit]

Willesee family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like Birney family below. If these were created by the same person, they could probably be AfD-linked. Just for future reference. GlassCobra 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that the biography articles in question are sufficient. JavaTenor 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable members apart from the one who already has an article. -- MightyWarrior 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD Cruft ExtraDry 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - much like the Hawke family article, the problem is not so much the small nmber of entries as the lack of a distinguishable political philosophy linking the family members together. This is more than party membership or representation of the same State. To be a political "family dynasty" would seem to require identificaton of a consistent and distinctive approach to the political issues of the day. The Kennedy family would be a good example. In the absence of a distinctive politifcal approach, the Willesee's are simply two representatives who happen to be related. This is insufficiently notable for an article of this kind. Euryalus 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the next generation of politcal journalists and you will have a real article. Archifile 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result is delete, I've send those two to the disambiguation page and it would be required that Jack Birney has an article since he was a member of the Australian House of Representatives those automatically passes WP:BIO and anyways this kind of info can be mentionned in both Matt's and Jack's (when the latter will have an article), thus it makes this list unnecessary since there is only two individuals with only one with currently an article.--JForget 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birney family[edit]

Birney family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serves no purpose. JJL 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GlassCobra 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two very notable pollies, one for some wrong reasons. AfD Cruft. Twenty Years 08:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Separate articles on the "two very notable pollies" are okay, but there is no reason for the family article. This family itself is not notable. -- MightyWarrior 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD Cruft ExtraDry 07:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Luttrell[edit]

Subject's notability is pretty questionable. She might be notable, and if some sources can be added and the article cleaned up to establish notability it would be great, but as it is right now I can't tell. Was tagged for speedy deletion but I removed it. Wizardman 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't any more notable than any other pub musician in the Atlanta, GA USA area.. General-snus 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a lot of people who entertain in there area, that does not make them notable, same here. Oyster guitarist 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some references can be added here, I don't think she belongs. There are many people that have appeared on reality shows, most of them also not notable. If references were added and notability shown, I might change my vote. Iamchrisryan 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources establishing notability per WP:MUSIC. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FALF Player[edit]

Non-notable free software. No evidence of third-party coverage to establish notability. Thomjakobsen 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advert. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notabillity, reads like an advertisment. Oyster guitarist 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN software ad. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theater in Florida[edit]

Created as a page, intended to possibly be a category. ViperSnake151 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the following page:

Theater in the United States

There is a grid there by listing by state...and I had to create a specialized "theater in florida" category in order to get the page included in that listing. If someone can make an edit that eliminates the bug to get the page listed...fine by me. A "theatre in Florida" category already exists, but it does not place pages into the above grid. Thanks for any help you can give.--Coachman76 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Basically the author created this page mistakenly, and it has no content worth preserving. The closing admin should make the suggested edit to the category if it's not already there. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Definitely a page created by mistake. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Šabac per WP:LIST. The content may be useful for a future article on Schools in Šabac, but that is not a useful outcome at this time. Bearian 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in Šabac[edit]

I believe this page should be merged and deleted. This information can be added to the Education section of Šabac. It does not need its own page just to list a bunch of schools. Rjd0060 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

- Rjd0060 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would be one thing if there were enough schools to actually justify a list, but there aren't. Merge the important info into the Šabac article. GlassCobra 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand all schools in Šabac into Schools in Šabac (List of high schools in Šabac + List of elementary schools in Šabac) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interaketing[edit]

Not in English ViperSnake151 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, I dont think I need an explanation for this. - Rjd0060 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Written in Esperanto; nobody in the world can understand it. There's an Esperanto wikipedia that this can be moved to, and you don't even have to live in Esperantoland to find it. Mandsford 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, it is written in another language, possibly move it to another wiki. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List at WP:PNT, but I suspect that this is an ad. If it was, why use Esperanto? ColourBurst 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think English is an integral part of the formula here. No need to even consider the content further Iamchrisryan 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's written in Portuguese. --Malcolmxl5 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's about a term invented by a Brazilian company to define a new model of marketing using the internet that they say is replacing traditional forms of advertising. I wouldn't disagree that there are new forms of marketing using the internet but I suggest then that this word is a protologism and does not meet WP:NEO. --Malcolmxl5 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't figure out a way to machine-translate this, but based on my attempt to translate, I have to agree with Malcolmx15 above. Zero Google hits for this neologism. Accounting4Taste 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete yes it is Portuguese, but unattributed to reliable source and a neologism. The whole article is just POV using YouTube videos to describe the new form of marking. Carlosguitar 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though the recent improvements make me lean toward keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Gamer[edit]

Does not seem notable (at least there is no evidence for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (web); no independent reliable sources. And do we really need to know which of "Matt" and "Yug" is drunk or sober? High on a tree 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be more of a case of a poorly written entry, rather than one about a subject with no notability. Whilst Yug and Matt being "drunk" is irrelevant (and has been removed), the site and the pair are quite well known in Australian gaming circles and have done a lot to promote the local industry. I hope the updates I have made to the entry make it more relevant for readers of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.77.55 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australian Gamer are well known in the gaming industry, and refs are given Article could admittedly use a cleanup. ShowerSugar 05:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has recently had some massive constributions been made. Revist the page before taking any further action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patronise (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Blomberg[edit]

Does not seem notable; no independent reliable sources. High on a tree 14:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (NN & no independent sources). - Rjd0060 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rjd above Tiptopper 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above, and no evidence of notability in Google hits from third-party sources; everything is self-generated. Accounting4Taste 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. • Lawrence Cohen 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Burgess[edit]

Does not seem notable; no independent reliable sources. High on a tree 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (NN & no independent sources). - Rjd0060 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, no sources, not even any article actually. Iamchrisryan 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. • Lawrence Cohen 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cullinane[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO

For politicians this states:

“Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.”

Cullinane doesn't meet any of the above criteria and google [9] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a local councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the nominator as pointed out is very accurate with regards to this person. The subject fails WP:BIO completely. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, fails to demonstrate notability. • Lawrence Cohen 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, fails WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Devlin[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO

For politicians this states:

"Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."

Devlin doesn't meet any of the above criteria and google [10] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a local councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the nominator as pointed out is very accurate with regards to this person. The subject fails WP:BIO completely as well as notability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Tiptopper 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Hal peridol 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to demonstrate notability. • Lawrence Cohen 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Séamus Morris[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO

For politicians this states:

"Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."

Morris doesn't meet any of the above criteria and google [11] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a local councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable politician. Eluchil404 05:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Reilly[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO

For politicians this states:

"Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."

Reilly doesn't meet any of the above criteria and google [12] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacies and to his work as a local councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Tiptopper 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (politician)[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO

For politicians this is:

Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

Dwyer doesn't meet any of the above criteria and google [13] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a local councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering that I'm Irish and have never heard of him (I'm interested in politics) he mustn't be notable--Phoenix 15 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- per nom, a nobody.JJJ999 13:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails criteria for politicians at WP:BIO, hasn't held a major office, not a member of a state/national legislature. shoeofdeath 02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Rose Dideriksen[edit]

Non-notable person. Actress with a single role, and very little coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:BIO Valrith 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up very few links to this subject. Moreover, this actress fails WP:BIO as well. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few very reliable sources already verifying most, if not all, of the content. Those google hits show reliable sources writing about this topic. A "Katrina Dideriksen" google search brings up several times more than your incomplete search. --Oakshade 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Come back when you've got more roles under your belt ... and more coverage. Blueboy 96 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep some coverage, notable production, but certainly borderline at best. JJL 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, keep because she plays one of the main roles in a very well-known musical. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Leading actress in major Vegas/Broadway show Hairspray playing opposite Harvey Fierstein. A performer can be be notable for a single role. Is covered by secondary reliable sources, one of which is an in depth profile solely of the topic. --Oakshade 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment--which topic, Dideriksen or Hairspray? A Google search of "Katrina Dideriksen" does not yield substantial, 3rd party refs. Even the bulk of the reliable refs on Hairspray only say "Katrina Dideriksen as Tracy Turnblad" which is not substantial.--Sethacus 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough -imo. Tiptopper 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daithí Doolan[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in this year's Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO For politicians this is: Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Doolan doesn't meet any of these criteria and google [14] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a city councillor - which is not in itself notable. Valenciano 13:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria as currently stated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pieces by composer: F[edit]

List comprises one composer and the content is listed elsewhere, would be pointless to list content in multiple places (Wikipedia:Listcruft). There are related pages but I would only like to nominate one at this time (see what consensus is). Dafoeberezin3494 12:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let this bad idea for a list start decomposing. Mandsford 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- in fact, delete all of them. This is not the way to divide up a list. There are better ways to handle this.DGG (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of lists of categories. I agree with DGG. Hal peridol 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other lists still in existence are B, D, G, H, L, M, N, P, S, and T, as well the category housing them all and the template linking them all. Dafoeberezin3494 17:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these lists serve no evident purpose, they are redundant per the various categories, there is no pressing reason to start a whole new navigation mechanism. I guess someone had an idea but perhaps did not think it through properly, or maybe didn't properly define what they were trying to do. Cruftbane 10:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. CitiCat^♫ 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One One Cup 2006[edit]

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines Yk Yk Yk 12:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles fail to meet the relevant notability guideline.

Comment Could almost be a speedy at the moment as there's no context. I had to do some searching just to work out what kind of tournament it is - it's badminton by the look of it. There seems to be a severe lack of sources in English [15], and the only blue-linked player doesn't bring up much either. However, as it's apparently a Malaysian event there may well be non-English sources which can be added. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It is a non-notable amateur sports event. The present content of the article is patent nonsense and unencyclopedic. Keb25 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Keb. No objection to a recreated article or articles that include proper sources (english or otherwsise). ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...So long as such articles assert their Notability, which this one does not. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it doesn't look like anyone's in a hurry to add sources, or even tell us what this event actually is or why we should care about it. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable sports event, no third-party sources. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (again) per CSD:G11. Note that a user removing a speedy tag or reposting speedied content (without a change) does not require an AFD, that only applies to prods. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowley's Restaurant[edit]

Does not appear notable. Article servers only for promotion of business Oscarthecat 11:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say it constitutes a speedy deletion Angel (^T^•^C) 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems not notable, also looks like advertising. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedied once already under db-spam, user removed my db-repost tag. --Blowdart 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer featured status inquiries to Wikipedia:Featured article review. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have asked me to restore this AfD (though I think anyone could have done this), so I have done so. I do not think an AfD is the way to resolve the issues with this article, and an AfD might be a waste of time, but I will leave it in the hands of the community from here on out. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Close for today; I was going to leave this open, but W.marsh mentioned it would be problematic to leave the AfD open when the article does not have the notice applied. Someone can "un-close" this tomorrow, when the article no longer appears on the main page. I see no reason to discuss this now, when the article (with a big deletion notice) will be seen by thousands of people. Thank you --Fang Aili ^talk 12:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson[edit]

Article is clearly advertising or a vanity article. Cited references are in magazines notorious for their inclusion of advertorial content Albatross2147 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not an advertisement because it mentions a company. The subject is notable and this article is sourced and passed peer review, Good Article Nomination and Featured Article Review. --Mike Searson 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I was rather surprised to see it on the front page - it reads like an advert to me. Chump Manbear 11:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be an ad, this must be un-featured immediately. 217.132.41.20 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that interested in knives or combat, but being a guy I found this a very enlightening article and found myself saying "cool" several times. I learned about some things I've never heard of or known about. All in all, I don't see why the article should be deleted. If it's an advertisement I don't see how since it says he's not doing the business anymore. Most importantly, I like reading about people (it says at the bottom of the page) who went from a starving student to a successful CEO building on a passion. That's what I found the most inspiring. Maybe the article just needs to be rewritten a little differently. -M. Campbell

I agree. Should be edited to about 1/10 of its original size, but I ain't gonna mess wit' a Seal man, NO WAY! I ran into the Taiwanese equivalent of a Seal -- they're called Frogs here -- and was twisted in knots and almost forgot my name! He said it was a "Yoga" lesson... and can you believe I thanked the guy just so he wouldn't go after me gain! Quirky 11:59, 01 October 2007 (East Asia time)

I am surprised that this became a featured article. The style is not encyclopedic; it's advertizementic. It would be my hope that this is downsized to about the size of a stub then built up from there with sources other than Emerson's site or his p.r. department. Sad that this got on the main page... Deepdesertfreman 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we at least remove it from the main page? 217.132.41.20 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-feature After checking out the main editor (User:Mike Searson), I absolutely believe he has acted in good faith. The article nevertheless reads like an ad though, and featuring it on the main page shows bad judgement by Raul.

Comment: MS had made some great contibutions to Wp but even the images in this article seem very problematic Albatross2147 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is/was a misunderstanding. One image did not have the proper tag on it, it does now.--Mike Searson 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be less controversial articles to showcase Wikipedia's best work? Lampman 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Because this guy wasn't a yoga instructor that went into business designing and selling dreamcatchers, his accomplishments aren't worthy of merit. You editors are shameless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --RucasHost 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M. Campbell - advertisement is unlikely due to the fact that you can't buy his custommade knives anymore anyway. It was an interesting read and should not be deleted. Although you peaceful souls out there might not like the fact itself but he obviously played a role in equipping and training military and LE units. Michael Mohr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.140.150 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. The advertising tone and any other issues can be dealt with in a manner that does not include deletion. Removing FA status is a subject for FAR. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. When I read this I couldn't believe it was a featured article, let alone a FEATURED ARTICLE ON THE MAIN PAGE. This is exactly the type of puffery that Brad Patrick had in mind when he suggested article G11 of the speedy deletion criterion! Burntsauce 17:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article was well vetted at WP:FAC for a full month, received many supports and one object. Notability is established, and after several days of discussion, not a single credible example of unsourced puffery has been provided. Baby Gender Mentor received the same sorts of complaints when it ran on the main page from editors who didn't seem to understand the difference between sourced statements and puffery. Bill Gates' article also discusses his company and products. We delete articles that fail notability; this one doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Burnsauce. The fact it passed FAC doesn't mean it's notable, it just means the FAC process is shoddy. The "stringent reviews" are obviously not happening, because it's more tedious to do them than to edit articles people are interested in. Tempshill 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I am changing my Delete vote to an Un-feature. This is absolutely not OK for a featured article. It is a sycophantic puff piece. That doesn't mean the topic isn't notable, and I am not sure whether it is, so I can't vote to delete. Tempshill 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye flipping gads i've seen promotional videos which do less promoting than this article. For the love of god, this needs to be massively butchered into a non puff piece, needs to be de-featured, and the guy who wrote it needs to be bitchslapped. Defeature, Clean it the fuck up ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; just the kind of post we expect from an admin. Now, do you have any valid reasons for AfD or defeaturing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need to be an admin to realize this "article" is a gigantic puff piece, as has been previously stated ad nauseum. How this ever became featured in the first place is beyond me. Burntsauce 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SandyGeorgia and Mike Searson, subject is notable. Any advertising issues can be easily dealt with. Dreadstar † 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the whole article needs reworked it could be about 1/4 of the size and still contain the information that is needed as it stands it is full of advertising type comments and self promotion just checking out google tells you this person isn't as important as the article makes out his wife which it claims is one of the most well known in her class does not even feature on google!

- get rid of it or strip it right back! John joskins 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, in reply to Tempshill and Alkivar - for the same reason we don't do deletion/inclusion debates on FAC and FAR, AFD is not featured article candidates or featured article review. Defeature is not an option here. Raul654 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No shit raul. But if enough people here are for defeaturing... i'll put it up at FARC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfeature and Weak keep - If and only if it can be cleaned up. The article in its current form is a boiled down synopsis of dozens of worshipful articles written by credulous drooling fanboys. I don't have the gun/knife/martial-arts obsession gene, for some reason, and therefore the article reads to me like a fansite, combined with an advertisement for the guy's services as a speaker, writer, etc. (not as a knifesmith). --Orange Mike 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm disturbed by this sort of assessment. The "dozens of worshipful articles" that this article uses for references seem to all be mainstream knife, gun, and martial arts magazines. Since you are apparently not into guns, knives, or martial arts, I can only assume that you have not actually read any of the sources themselves, making your assessment that they were written by "credulous drooling fanboys" somewhat unreliable. On what basis can you conclude that the guy is not actually worthy of the praise lavished by all of the these sources, and doesn't the fact that so many sources all have positive things to say make each of them more reliable, rather than less? I don't mean to pick on just Orangemike's opinion here; it seems like many of the votes in favor of deletion are making wild assumptions about the reliability or neutrality of the sources used in the article, without any evidence. I thought we were supposed to assume that published sources were more reliable than editors' opinions. Orangemike and others are certainly entitled to feel that the article has an overly promotional tone, but if everyone who has ever written about the guy thinks he's the greatest then the article will have only positive things to say. Bradford44 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not all; we have an admin calling (on this page) for the author of the article to be "bitchslapped" (and this is after he has endured all sorts of uncivil abuse on the talk page since this article ran on the main page). Narry an admin has stepped in. Wonder what became of Wiki's code of conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to restate it so it's crystal clear - this article will NOT be de-featured as a result of discussion here. The only way it will be de-featured is if this is closed as a keep, the article is subsequently put on FAR review, and Marksel, Joey, or I close the the FAR review and defeature it. Raul654 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete w/salt. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fictional topics[edit]

Back in August the article Lists of fictional things was properly deleted via this AFD. Someone re-created the article a few weeks later, and it was summarily deleted via CSD G4 (re-creation of deleted topics). Now we have Lists of fictional topics, which is a superlist of anything that can be represented in fiction and essentially the same content that was deleted before, with a slight name change. I wholeheartedly believe this is just an end-run around the original AfD, and personally think this should also fall under CSD G4. Being that the name is slightly different, I am relisting here for your consumption. Original AfD was nominated with the following rationale:

WP:NOT - This has got to be the apex of "indiscriminate information". Personal disdain for "list of" articles aside, this one has no hope of ever being complete or useful. It appears to be mostly a "list of list of articles", but I don't see any utility in having an article with such an unimaginable scope. Many, many editors have noted on the talk page the lunacy of this article (though I believe this is the first nomination for deletion). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything that's ever been (or, most especially, a list of things that have never been!).

/Blaxthos 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete That's amazing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have Category: Lists of fictional things and Category: fictional characters and Category:fictional locations. Perhaps those should be subcategories of a larger category. Mandsford 15:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt How did this last through August? Unmaintainable, indiscriminate, will never come close to being complete. Blueboy 96 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. I agree with the above but, believe it or not, this is NOT the apex of indiscriminate information -- that was List of things, which went AfD this past week. Accounting4Taste 18:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one was not a good idea. DGG (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does seem a classic case of a topic better approached via the categories that Mandsford mentions. Espresso Addict 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I bet another apex will pop up within a week. My $10 is on [[List of Apexs of Indiscriminate Information]] Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePointless artical that could include anything from fictional cars to rabidy anal sex monsters cats. Its basicly an unatainable artical that will spiral out of hand ForeverDEAD 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There also is List of basic fiction topics. And List of science fiction topics seems to be similar to List of science fiction themes. Also, Lists of fictional things now is at DRV here. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dalrymple (musician)[edit]

Individually non-notable musician. • Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources independent of his bands. I'd say redirect to a specific band, but this guy's all over the place.--Sethacus 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, does not cite sources. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable independently of bands and bands are not notable enough to warrant individual articles for each member. A1octopus 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, no secondary RS. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baharak Roudiani[edit]

Probable hoax. No Ghits for Baharak Roudiani, or Raymond Karam (as ambassador). --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax. Just reading the article pretty much gives it away. GlassCobra 10:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Above. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. A quick search shows it is a hoax (even though it didn't need a search to show that!!). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad --Londonkal 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Google search brought up nothing and if you read it it's kind of obvious. Oyster guitarist 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spaceborne heavy cruisers[edit]

This is a list of fictional spacecraft which have been referred to as heavy cruisers. There's no indication that they have any relationship in design or ability; it's just a cool-sounding phrase borrowed from C20th naval warfare. It's original research, and should be deleted. Nydas^(Talk) 10:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite aside from the original research element, it's a) an indiscriminate list and b) serves no useful function as by taking elements from multiple fictional universes it's not comparing like-for-like. — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Ech. GlassCobra 10:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as above. Buckshot06 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of overly specific fictional element. Artw 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - I'm only saddened that I didn't find this one first. ;-) /Blaxthos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless more careful specification can be made. DGG (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the title alone. What's next? List of fictional spaceborne light cruisers? List of fictional spaceborne medium cruisers? What does "heavy cruiser" even mean? Cogswobble talk 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy in popular culture[edit]

It's a useless list, non-notable, just trivial cruft. It's not even that long, with only 10 different shows and 14 separate references. The only page that links to it is the main Grey's Anatomy page. •97198 talk 09:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have to watch a LOT of television to do a list like this one. This type of IPC very rarely survives deletion. It's useless even to fans of the show, essentially, a list of acknowledgments. Mandsford 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of non-associated topics. Any popular series is going to end up being referenced on other series. Lists of times someone says "McDreamy" or "Grey's Anatomy" or whatever on any other TV show ever...and people wonder why "...in popular culture" articles have such bad reputations. Otto4711 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although not a show I watch, this referenced and well-organized list does demonstrate the intense influence this popular show has had on popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason I created this article was due to WP:SIZE. Now that I think about it, it was really pointless as this article contains trivial information. So, I'm not going vote to keep or delete, rather, merge would be preferable. σмgн gσмg 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to Delete as per nom as well as WP:TRIVIA. σмgн gσмg 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft and trivia. /Blaxthos 23:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not really enough for a separate article. At last some of the individual items are relevant content for WP--the specific references of one notable show to another are encyclopedic content.DGG (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. The article is trivial and just cruft. RobJ1981 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_don.27t_like_it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never once said I hated the article. So that I don't like it nonsense doesn't apply here. I could throw a similar thing at you: the "I like it" page. Many of your keep votes are clearly liking the subject, and not giving proper reasons to keep. RobJ1981 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of debating about who is using bad arguments we could discuss the article and just give good arguments. The poor ones will be obvious. DGG (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reference in a TV show in another TV show is not notable--Victor falk 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA, too minor of a topic for a in pop culture article. do not merge. Jbeach56 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heres one that definatly does need to go. Artw 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN as a topic, also, per wide precedent of deleted "In popular culture" articles [16] Dannycali 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that some television programmes might be so seminal/important/well established et cetera that they might just warrant an "in popular culture" article, but I don't think we can claim notability of such an article for one as far down the scale of importance as Grey's Anatomy. A1octopus 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Tropicana[edit]

Contested prod. I still don't see what is notable about this school; this should have been speedied under WP:CSD#A7 long ago. In fact, it was tagged soon after creation, but the creator removed the tag. - ∅ (∅), 09:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Punkmorten 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not notable, should have been deleted a long time ago. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable sub-high school level. Chris 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the unencyclopedic article and its images. Definitely a non-notable school. Keb25 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author, one of these kids, claims to own the copyright for his school's official badge and some kind of independence day button and has graciously released them into the public domain ;-D - ∅ (∅), 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. Though I feel sorry for those kids that wrote about their school, when they make such an effort as in this one.--Victor falk 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search generally reveals no real notability of the school, article would need to be completely re-written to be encyclopedic anyway. Camaron1 | Chris 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Twenty Years 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, again. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White guilt[edit]

An OR topic, without good, concrete sources. Was nominated back in April, with a "no consensus" reaches, including many "keeps" stating that more sources were necessary, etc. Jmlk 1 7 09:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The concept is notable and adequately sourced. And this AFD is too soon after the last one. Colonel Warden 09:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where's the record of the first AfD? Was it overwritten by this one? GlassCobra 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. It looks like that was what happened. futurebird 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Important topic in sociology. Although the article still needs work it has improved and should continue to do so. futurebird 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last AFD was in April 2007. Isn't it too soon to bring this up again? futurebird 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Five months is a long time in AFD, especially when the previous result was "no consensus". Articles have been re-nominated less than 48 hours after an AFD. Masaruemoto 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. By the Hated Google Test, we have 183,000 ghits, 1,670 News hits, 898 Scholar hits, for a phrase with few or no other uses. Several scholarly books use this phrase as their title, or a significant part of it. I'm afraid this nomination may have confused WP:OR with WP:IHAVENTHEARDOFIT. Nor do I understand the "original research & unverified claims" header over such neutral and uncontroversial statements. A refimprove tag would be appropriate, but not this over-reaction. <eleland/talkedits> 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable concept, OR problems can be fixed. Article also seems to have improved greatly since nomination. Yahel Guhan 21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; this AFD needs to be fixed as the nominator just deleted the previous AFD to start this discussion. Masaruemoto 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem solved. Yahel Guhan 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept has been around for decades. Shelby Steele recently wrote an Op-ed on it in The Wall Street Journal last week (and I see he's one of the two sources in our article). It's also largely what George Bush was talking about in the 2000 campaign and afterward when he mentioned "the soft bigotry of low expectations". It is either a part of or something related to "liberal guilt" (84,000 ghits). Whether or not it exists as a feeling is beside the point -- it's a WP:Notable concept, both important and able to be covered. There are multiple (two), reliable sources. There could be 20,000 reliable sources from the past five decades or so. If "White guilt" didn't exist, there would be no support whatever from caucasian Americans for the idea of "reparations" to blacks -- which, by the way, has this interesting article: Reparations for slavery Noroton 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequately sourced. --Quoth nevermore 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charge of WP:Original research does apply to some of the sentences at the bottom, which need to be given citations. That's fixable, though, and shouldn't be fatal. Noroton 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improve the article if it needs it, but it is notable. It will take a lot of work to make it NPOV, and like many race-related articles I think it will need some protection. We need more administrator awareness of patterns as noted here: list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. --Lizzard 15:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Independence Mission[edit]

According to Mission (LDS Church), there are well over 300 missions of the LDS Church. This article is about one of them, and it doesn't seem particularly notable in comparison to others that can be read about at Mission (LDS Church). Similar mission-specific articles have been deleted in the past, most recently (to my knowledge) HERE. It appears from the article that the mission has gone by this name for only a limited period of time, and most of the information in the article is historical, from a time when this mission as an organizational unit did not exist. I propose deletion (or a redirect) and a possible copying of material for inclusion in historical discussion at Mission (LDS Church). (For a similar recent LDS Church-related AFD, see HERE.) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mission did exist as an organized unit during the history this article covers. It did not get its current name until 1974, but it has had its headquarters in Independence for over 100 years, and its activities were centered in Independence.

As the mission that published Liahona The Elders Journal it is important. It was also one of the few missions that organized long lasting LDS colonies. The article could be moved to be under "Central States Mission", but I do think this is a justafiable article.Johnpacklambert 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved, but still Delete : This appears to have been recently moved to Central States Mission. The name-change does not change my opinion that there is no need for mission-specific articles when historical information can easily be included at Mission (LDS Church). If absolutely necessary, a separate article named History of LDS Church missions or History of missions (LDS Church) would be more appropriate than having a separate one for each mission of the church. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information appears to have already been transferred and incorporated into Mission (LDS Church) without any adverse results to the article. No need for an article for every mission of the LDS Church. Snocrates 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bif! Bam! Pow! Wow![edit]

Non-notable TV show, no third-party references. GlassCobra 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any mentions of the show on reputable news sources within the genre, and I've only been able to find about two blurbs on small blogs. The majority of search hits seem to just be syndicated pages that actually carry the show. BTW this isn't a TV show it's an internet vidcast as far as I've been able to understand from my research. If it is on TV it might be local or cable access.--Torchwood Who? 09:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS do not appear to be forthcoming, which indicates notability problems. /Blaxthos 11:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{t - c} 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable show, no reliable secondary sources. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 15:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Anders Aune[edit]

I suspect this article to be a hoax. There is no mention of this person on the Malaysian Idol page and checking with the Norwagian tax registry shows only one person with this name, however with a different birth date. No pages link to this article, and a Google search yields no relevant hits. meco 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax article and how can an individual be born in 1953 and be currently 24 years old? Just not possible unless one of those scifi things happens (i.e. a time machine or someone gets stuck in a time-dilation field :P). nat^tang 07:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. GlassCobra 08:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V (hoax). Punkmorten 11:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Jaclyn Victor was actually the first season winner of Malaysian Idol, this looks like a hoax. Although the date of birth could just be a typo, on the number pad 8 is above the 5. MorganaFiolett 11:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. "Nadia du e faen så stygg" is Norwegian for "Nadia, you're fucking ugly". No artist named Tor Anders Aune has ever appeared on the Norwegian hitlist. The entire article is obviously a joke. 96T 12:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not listed on page of Malaysian Idol, probally a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour lifestyle[edit]

No content except some weblinks, not sure exactly what this article is supposed to be about, and seeing a little bit of irony in the fact I'm nominating it at 3 AM. Contested PROD. UsaSatsui 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unattributed, no context and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Carlosguitar 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no meaningful content. GlassCobra 08:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple dicdef, and not even a good or necessary one. A lifestyle of constant activity? Really? I'd never have guessed. Was originally a disambiguation page for "24 hour lifestyle pill", but that doesn't appear to be a commonly used term (22 unique Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors). Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conley[edit]

Non-notable band member. This article has been largely created by a horde of sockpuppets and seems to fail music. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of R:128.40.76.3 and specifically the most recent incarnation User:Punkguy182. --Jack Merridew 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep putting aside the shortcomings of ~~the article's creator~~User:R:128.40.76.3, Chris Conley is pretty much synonymous with a band that IMO, passes WP:MUSIC. An argument could be made to merge this and Saves the Day. I thinnk the non-free Image:ChrisC.jpg may be a problem (the editor believes that since he made a screen grab of a webcast he is free to GFDL-self the image), and I'm not convinced that all their records (Can't Slow Down (Saves the Day album), I'm Sorry I'm Leaving, Through Being Cool, Stay What You Are, In Reverie, Ups and Downs, Bug Sessions Volume One, Sound the Alarm, Under the Boards) are notable. Pete.Hurd 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A small, but very determined, group of editors insists on blanking this page into a redirect to Saves the Day, culminating in a WP:3RR violation by User:Eusebeus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Eusebeus reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Page protected). The page blanking has been justified on the basis that the article fails WP:BIO and, more specifically, WP:MUSIC, the excuse cited in the nomination above. Criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". A Google News Archive search found 107 articles from such publications as The New York Times, Rolling Stone, The Hollywood Reporter and other newspapers and magazines across the United States and Canada, which would clearly satisfy this criterion. Criteria 5 states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).", which is also well-documented in the article. One could go through other criteria that are also satisfied, but there is no counterargument provided to demonstrate that WP:MUSIC's guidelines are not met by this article. The page has been protected to bar any further abuse by User:Eusebeus following his recent WP:3RR violation, with the strong suggestion made that the article should be discussed at Talk:Chris Conley. Apparently, there is no interest in observing Wikipedia policy or following through on suggestions for discussion. In the mean time, there has been no valid argument that this article does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Alansohn 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable. Colonel Warden 06:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This guy easily meets WP:MUSIC. Lugnuts 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aye, quite notable, well sourced. Chubbles 08:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Lots of good sources, notable band. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article rather than merge into Saves the Day, since much of the media coverage, such as the Rolling Stone article, does focus on Conley himself. --Paul Erik 18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Saves the Day. Well-referenced. --Sc straker 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC. To much talk of trolling, and sockpuppetry which has nothing to do with an articles quality or a subjects notability. I suspect this AfD is just trolling by Jack Merridew looking from a response from User:R:128.40.76.3 who I have nothing to do with and really do not understand what his allegations and complaints are all about. Punkguy182 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom. This page has become a magnet - inexplicably - for COI and SPA edits. I aver that the singer is not really independently notable of his band, which is fairly clear from my old pal Alan's link to googlenews in his bureaucratic note. Given the garbage and junk that this article accumulates, along with the questionable notability of the singer, a redirect to Saves the Day is the best solution. Eusebeus 13:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aver all you want, dear old buddy, but consensus here is clear that the content of the article and the more than hundred additional sources available via Google News demonstrate that Conley meets any and all standards of notability based on WP:MUSIC. Hopefully, the same clear consensus of notability that was so brazenly disregarded in blanking the article to a redirect on some 14 separate occasions, and that resulted in the recent WP:3RR violation, will not be disregarded after this AfD closes as a keep. Alansohn 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Australian English[edit]

artlicle offers no information and seems to exist to push POV in some other articles. Term is unknown and as for the "dialect" itself it is not recognised nor do you get many hits from google. Raya 85 06:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to credible sources. Likely not much here except some slang. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 13:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Reliable sources. Unencyclopedic and POV article. Keb25 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as being sourced from a single point. I'll change this if more reliable sources. can be presented. There only appears to be one reliable source (added during this debate) that mentions the title. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on the debate but it took me precisely 3 seconds to find a conference paper at the University of Queensland on this topic. The linguistics faculty of Macquarie University also seems to have some info, although this may relate to the same paper. Orderinchaos 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn - I missed that. I've searched around and it appears two papers were presented (2006) by the same authors about this. The abstract went in the "Australian Journal of Psychology" in 2006 and two papers presented in July and December of the same year at linguistics conferences in Sydney and Brisbane. I can't seem to find anything else except for this one-off by two academics. Does not seem to have taken off anywhere. An article from the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language (1996) by Kumpf, K.; King, R.W. refers to the speech of Lebanese Australians as accented rather than a separate variation of Australian English. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm quite happy to take someone else's word for it :) Orderinchaos 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Twenty Years 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single reference which really doesn't say terribly much. Nothing to establish it a as a widely known concept. —Moondyne 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated, the single reference is not sufficient to demonstrate that this is a term in wide currency or has a phraseology distinct enough for its own article. While only an abstract appears on-line the reference is in any case apparently about accents and pronunciation more than a social or cultural phenomena. The article is also of dubious accuracy. Most Lebanese Australians speak Australian English (not "a small number"). The suggestion that Lebanese people somehow seclude themselves from other nationalities is either irrelevant (to the extent that every nationaliy associates with other people of the same background) or false (Lebanese Australians have by and large been integrated into the general community for decades). Euryalus 03:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 SoccerGaming Security Breach[edit]

Article summary: somebody hacked into a random internet forum. Article fails to establish any real world consequences, so nobody cares. Heck, we don't even have an article on the concerned forum. MER-C 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOONECARES. --UsaSatsui 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wow. Just...wow. I could not agree with WP:NOONECARES more. GlassCobra 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, points to the nom for using an Uncyclopedia page in his AfD reasoning. Well done. GlassCobra 09:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above comments STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and also fails many other Wikipedia policies. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The website isn't notable enough to have an article. Why should an incident on the cite be notable? Found through NewArtBot (User:AlexNewArtBot/WisconsinSearchResult). Royalbroil 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo[edit]

Small NN law firm, 70 lawyers, fails WP:CORP. -- Y not? 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not provide secondary sources. does not meet WP:CORP. Tiptoety 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. OfficeGirl 05:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN & fails WP:CORP. Spawn Man 06:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CORP STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary reliable sources establishing notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation Ohio[edit]

No coverage seen from reliable sources; also reads like an advertisement Nyttend 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam if I ever saw it--Phoenix 15 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even a current google news search brings up a secondary reliable source [17]. The National Trust has written about them [18] [19] as the Toledo Blade has [20]. --Oakshade 03:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - May need cleanup, but i do not think it reads like an advert, and per Oakshade. Tiptoety 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for cleanup. It is a brochure-like article, but there are sources available. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, may be a better article after cleanup. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA notable organization. The article could use some cleanup and some citations, but how do you discribe an organization, serving the public good, without mentioning it's objectives and prosperities. If it' s really a charitable organization, it will always sound like an add.--Thw1309 13:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Per Tiptoety - It seems trivial though. Tiptopper 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article does need some work - but that's not a reason to delete. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race game[edit]

Contested Speedy. This article has very little context and little chance for expansion. I think this article has some problems with WP:NEO, as it seems to give a definition of "race games". There are examples of "race games" but I don't believe this to be encyclopedic. Rjd0060 03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a neologism; 'race game' is an accepted term of board game history. It appears in several board game articles but has not been wikified: E.g. in chaturaji: "However, there is no certainty whether the mentioned game is really a chess-like game like Chaturaji, or a race game like Pachisi." We already have articles for cross and circle game and running-fight game, which are subspecies of this type. It includes some of the oldest attested board games. Bacchiad 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a sound basis for an article and I have added a relevant cite. These annoying deletions are like a notable race game: Snakes and Ladders. Colonel Warden 06:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, classic game type although the name itself is probably 20th or at most 19th century. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a reference and a statement of context and significance. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bacchiad. This isn't a neologism. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good stub, needs expanding not deleting. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move category and possibly article to Race board games; or expand to cover non-board-games. Percy Snoodle 12:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WeeMee[edit]

I am also nominating the following redirect pages: Leuko 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WeeWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weemee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wee Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wee Mee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable website. Article does not include any WP:RS to indicate fulfillment of WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria. Leuko 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Weeme is used in a number of high profile messaging sites. Article needs a re-write and I doubt if all the redirect pages are needed; but it is sufficiently notable for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1atv (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to assert notability, thus fails WP:WEB. shoy 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little there is to Skype, and delete the rather useless redirects. Seems only notable in context of the lawsuit they tried against Nintendo. humblefool ® 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevent content into Skype and Mii. -Toptomcat 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep no merge. Merge to skype? really? The things were on MSN first, merging to skype is a bad idea. Needs a rewrite certainly, not a merge into a single IM program page when it spans multiple IM pograms. --Blowdart 14:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible merge No reliable sources. There could be a mention and a link in Skype, Windows Live Messenger or AIM. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius Production Cycle[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, doesn't even appear to be a real band, the article looks to be jokingly written. No search results on google. Gh5046 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Also no WP:RS for Mobius+band+geetar. Carlosguitar 07:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. GlassCobra 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this has to be a joke.I mean, come on... KFC-IS-GEWD mental disorder... get this thing outta here asap. --Torchwood Who? 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Fleet Universe. I'll also take this moment to spam a couple of Star Trek wikis [21] [22] that might have been more appropriate (although I don't think their licensing permits direct copying from Wikipedia).-chaser - t 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

This SF stub fails WP:NOTABILITY, provides no context or analayis, and has no independent sources to verify its content. --Gavin Collins 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable for Star Fleet Universe. Add sources and expand. Carlosguitar 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No sane arguments for independent note under WP:NOTE at present, zero WP:RS, but can cover on parent article or, if they'll take non-canon info, make mention of it in Lyran Star Empire after merging to List of Star Trek races (assuming either warrant the bother). MrZaius^talk 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions. —Gavin Collins 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with some references added) to a new article about powers of the Star Fleet Universe along with similar articles. Pinball22 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge since it is lacking in any real-world information. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable for a stand alone article. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with a main article about Star Fleet Universe races or powers.--Torchwood Who? 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — RJH (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Good info but not notable by itself. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Lomov[edit]

Doesn't establish notability of the subject under WP:MUSIC. There are no references substantiating notability Bazaryakov 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you notified the author? --Malcolmxl5 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Bazaryakov 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put {{subst:adw|Nicolai Lomov}} ~~~~ on their talk page in a new section titled 'AfD: Nicolai Lomov', or similar. --Malcolmxl5 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 Bazaryakov 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Bazaryakov. I see you put it on Ben's user page so I've moved it over to the talk (discussion) page. --Malcolmxl5 02:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Anyway, back to the AfD. I agree with you, Nicolai does not seem to meet the criteria for musicians --Malcolmxl5 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have switched to keep as a number of sources have been found. Lomov is clearly more than just another pianist. He performs widely and has apparently made a number of recordings (though I can only find one in WorldCat). There are references to him in articles in the Boston Globe and a couple of classical music magazines. I think now we can spend some time building up this article beyond a stub. --Malcolmxl5 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNN, per Malcolmxl5 ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only found this source, but still seems to fails WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ben Tibbetts's sources. Carlosguitar 02:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, thanks for the note. Keep. I could be reading this incorrectly, but if WP:MUSIC designates that multiple independent works concerning a musician deems it notable then Nicolai Lomov has a documentary (?) on the IMDB, an article in a classical music magazine, and a brief article describing him as a juror for the Boston International Piano Competition found here. I'm not sure about the documentary but one would think a classical music magazine would be a fairly reliable source as would the latter article, so WP:RS seems okay to me. As the author of the article I should have added these links and information right away. Actually, my original reason for writing up this quick article stub was to complete a link in List of classical pianists. If this article's going to be deleted I think it appropriate that link should be removed. Ben Tibbetts 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, he is notable. A documentaery was done on him. He is a "real" recording musician. Callelinea 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which documentary? Any sources? I will change my position if the documentary was made by a notable channel. Carlosguitar 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Callelinea is right. Subject of a documentary. Plus, his story's been featured in the Boston Globe and San Jose Mercury News.--Sethacus 01:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An assertation of notability in the lead is needed in my view, as all it says now is that's he's a classical pianist, which by itself is not notable. Has he won any awards perhaps? Callelinea: you say he's a 'recording' musician? That needs to be added to the article together with a list of his recordings, if you can do it. Sethacus: Can you add references to the article from the Boston Globe and San Jose Mercury News? The article really needs to say more than just that he's a classically trained pianist who once played with a not-notable orchestra, emigrated to the States and now teaches. --Malcolmxl5 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just added a ref to a Boston Globe article {one of several BG articles I found on him) plus added some information. I think more attention is needed on this article. The Globe article and IMDb entry assert he was a dishwasher when he came to America. Now, he is a lauded classical pianist, the subject of a documentary film. Surely, he deserves attention. I'll be adding articles at my discretion (whether or not they speak to notability) throughout the day.--Sethacus 20:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it doesn't seem necessary to add refs, but I added information. A source I found online says he produced 15 CDs, yet I can't find any evidence of them. I'm going to try and get more on this offline.--Sethacus 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to lend a hand to expand the article, if I'm able to do so. --Malcolmxl5 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Anthony Appleyard (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andezoo[edit]

To me, this reads like an advertisement. Possibly the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias have already deleted similar articles by the same user as spam. At best, it's not notable enough to warrant an article. However, another user nominated it for speedy deletion, then immediately removed the tag, noting in the summary that it's not spam. That makes it potentially controversial, thus the AfD. Katherine Tredwell 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN it isn't notable in peru and it's doubtful it will be anywhere else. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 02:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete It doesn't matter where it's notable - If it's notable in Peru, then it's notable. Wikipedia is not the property of the United States, and NPOV includes neutrality of nationality. That said - The sources provided are all from the same newspaper. That newspaper, el Comercio, is indeed an independent and reliable source (see also El Comercio (Peru)), so it's not just a press release being regurgitated - it's a real newspaper. Further, the articles come from May and June of this year, showing that coverage of the product line continued, at least for a time. Within Peru, sources for additional coverage will be limited, which is why the paper is relied upon so heavily here. The article needs much cleanup, and it seems clear that the primary author(s) are non-native english speakers - but those issues can be dealt with. Best, ZZ ^Claims~Evidence 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (Changed to Delete per below - ZZ 12:58, 1 October 2007 )[reply]

Comment - I have notified the article's creator about this AFD as recommended per WP:AFD, using the AFD warning template provided. Interestingly, the user is named Andezoo as well. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the article comprises descriptions of the four critters taken verbatim from the Andezoo website. it could make the article a copyvio; it's also a sign of a spammer. Katherine Tredwell 03:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the Andezoo website - and, having done so, I agree that the article as-is appears to breach WP:COPYVIO. Given the low amount of non-copyvio content, there's very little to salvage. So, I'm changing my recommendation above to Delete. I still think that the sources, if used properly, would be enough to meet WP:NOTE, and that an article on the subject would be feasible - but this article in this form isn't salvageable. A fresh start is warranted. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad alert! Ad alert!--Gp75motorsports 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (already merged). If anyone wants to contact someone with Import access (see Help:Transwiki and related pages) on the Farscape Wiki, feel free to transwiki it, the history is still there. Mr.Z-man 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gammak base[edit]

This fictional topic consists entirely of in-universe information. There is no independent reliable sources to provide evidence of WP:Notability to justify keeping this plot summary.--Gavin Collins 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. (Fails to assert notability and lacks reliable sources. - Rjd0060 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Seems like it should be merged to another article, probably Peacekeeper (Farscape). Pinball22 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SolidPlaid 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Content has been added to Peacekeeper (Farscape). PC78 12:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If possible, also transwiki to Farscape Wiki rather than delete. PC78 10:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carta[edit]

Non-notable musician. Google search for the name gets the website of a musician who has television and movie credits, but is not the subject of the article. It's just a biography about a non-notable college student. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Likely a vanity page. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait No one said anything about him being a Yu-Gi-Oh! master! Yeah, delete. NN vanity bio.--Sethacus 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. That said, credit to the author for composing something more interesting than the typical article of the type. --Moonriddengirl 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Vanity bio! fails to meet WP:BIO. Tiptoety 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The power of John's deck lies in its flexibility and unpredictability." Ooh...scary. GlassCobra 08:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:RS and WP:MUSIC STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lol Sethicus! I can't believe anyone thought this would survive the Wikipedia editors! Tiptopper 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, vanity page. Oyster guitarist 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Apparently I wasn't doing new page patrol that day ;-). Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Accounting4Taste 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - Just because John Carta is not a nationally known musician or Yu-Gi-Oh master doesn't mean he's not notable. His life's biography and renown fame is important to many in New England. His fame is not due to his having a website, it is the result of the passing down of his tales by his fans from generation to generation. There is also a facebook group in his honor with over 60 members. It may not be a large number, but those are some hardcore John Carta Fans. Taking away their John Carta, is like taking away their will to live. John Carta will be remembered in the hearts of the many he has touched, and been touched by, forever. Long live Carlito. jrthib ^T/C 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.117.166 (talk) — Jrthib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 137.99.117.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Ah, so he's a folk legend? Yeah, I somehow doubt that.--Sethacus 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if he's so important, why aren't there isn't any coverage of his feats in reliable sources then? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Management Science and Technology[edit]

It is about a department. Mainly information is from the department's page. It was prodded for deletion but the author removed the tag without making any improvements. Moreover, it orphan. Magioladitis 01:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article after removing the tag (5th July 2007) made no more improvements to the article. In his talk page he wrote the following:

"If the objection is around the fact that academic departments are not separately notable from universities, this is certainly not the case with this department.

This department is one of the most popular academic departments in greek business schools. The purpose of this article is to help high school graduates in their research for an academic department that satisfies their aspirations.

In greek education system high school graduates select academic deprtments and not universities so departments are indeed separetely notable from universities. Could you please be more specific about the problem with the article? Dimefs 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)"

-- Magioladitis 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Athens University of Economics and Business if there is any salvageable material. Without an assertion of some claim to notability of the department over that of other schools, I don't think it is notable enough to stand alone. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not persuaded by the author's explanation that this selection by department is any more significant than selecting a major or an academic program (e.g. B.S. vs. B.A., as well as other specialized degrees). --Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would have to be among the top handful of management departments in the world to be notable enough for an article. Possible, but there is certainly no evidence of that. I think something really special would need to be shown. There isn't here--not even a listing of notable professors or successful alumni. . This should be done as a section of the article on the university. DGG (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN university department, no RS establishing notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Magioladitis. Nips 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valueism[edit]

Seems, from google and philosophy database searches, to be a non-notable theory. I may be wrong here because the reference given is to an article or book that I have not been able to find, which may be because it is written in a langauge other than English - so perhaps it is a notable theory in some other country. There are going to be problems for anyone who tries to use "valueism" as an English name for the theory described because the term seems to be used in a similar way to "moralism". Anarchia 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete under-referenced to the point of OR. Am willing to change my !vote if RE sources are produced. Pete.Hurd 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Anarchia. May be notable in other country, but I did not found WP:RS to assert notability. Carlosguitar 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pete.Hurd. This is original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Revenge[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a fairly popular band in the "queercore" or "homocore" genres. See [23] [24] [25] etc. This is one band in a fairly underground genre, but I'm convinced it meets WP:N. - superβεεcat 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In your first reference, the interviewee says that homocore is "asleep" (not active any more?). Not exactly what I want from a reference. Notablility takes more than getting a mention on a web site somewhere. MarkBul 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Notability isn't temporary. The genre of homocore may be "asleep", that doesn't say anything about the notability of the band. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moreover, you picked one line from a person in one band which the article is not predominately about, and totally out of context. So I think kids will come up waving the homocore flag again. It's not dead, it's just asleep.. The spirit of the article is very clearly that the genre is doing well, and the point of including it as a reference was that given the genre, it's an important band, which is why it is pointed out in the article about the genre. - superβεεcat 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has significant fan base within queercore scene, (WP:N) and is representative of that scene. Also has coverage in secondary sources. --Beloved Freak 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only was Best Revenge instrumental in the queercore scene, the band was responsible for the release of the recordings (through their indie label, Spitshine Records) of several other notable queercore artists including Skinjobs, iamloved, and Brian Grillo (of Extra Fancy) to name a few. Also featured in Homocore book. Mackaye 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep once the references cited above are added to the article. Side note: Should it trouble us that the record label links to us as the band's bio? Chubbles 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Much less depth to this discussion, but merge no longer an option in light of the deletion of the other article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Street series soundtracks[edit]

Indiscriminate list of every music track from each game of the series. No references either WP:N, WP:V. Please also see the related AfD for FIFA series soundtracks.Miremare 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No established notability. --Scottie_theNerd 15:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Listcruft. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC points 1 and 3. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see my vote and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA series soundtracks. 96T 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into a combined FIFA series soundtracks page (I voted for keep on the other). matt91486 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Endless Dan 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:LC. Fin©™ 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not a policy, but an essay. 96T 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which counts as an informed opinion about the nature of such articles on Wikipedia, and should be considered when arguing against deletion of list-based articles. --Scottie_theNerd 15:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with FIFA series soundtracks. User:Krator (t c) 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't understand why this is a notable information. I'll vote delete fro both articles -- Magioladitis 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, after a surprisingly in-depth discussion. Analyzing the discussion leads to the conclusion that there may be an decent article to write on FIFA series soundtracks, but this version is too much of a directory.--Kubigula (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA series soundtracks[edit]

Indiscriminate list of every music track from each game of the series. No references either WP:N, WP:V. Please also see the related AfD for FIFA Street series soundtracks. Miremare 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is not, as the nomitator seems to think, an indiscriminate list. The topics are closely associated, the subject is notable (the FIFA games are obviously notable, and who have played them without noticing the music?), and the list is 100 % objective. In other words, no reason to delete this. Sources should be added, though. 96T 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The FIFA series is notable. The soundtracks, however, are not. Without independent sources to prove that individual soundtracks or individual tracks within soundtracks are notable, lists like these shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The games may be notable. The individual elements? Not so much. Is there some evidence that this particular aspect -- in such detail -- has been written about by reliable sources anywhere? Probably a rhetorical question, but still... --Calton | Talk 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Sort the soundtracks into each game article if not already done so. - Vicer 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied All tracks are transwikied to the respective pages under the games in the Encyclopedia Gamia So if it gets deleted check there--Cs california 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 00:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft. Half of the linked songs are redlinks anyway, so it's not really notable. Perhaps on the songs that do have articles can have a note about its inclusion in the game, or this can be turned into a category. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC points 1 and 3. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment point 1 is highly subjective, while point 3 does not apply in this situation (this list is nothing more of an indiscriminate list than an album tracklisting is, and not a FAQ, plot summary, lyrics database, statistic or news report, which are the only things considered not to belong on Wikipedia per WP:IINFO). 96T 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the list at WP:IINFO is exhaustive, not least because otherwise it would violate itself... Stifle (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously, but claiming that a soundtrack listing should be deleted still has little backing in the WP:IINFO policy. 96T 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What makes this not an indiscriminate list? Where's the notability of the subject to justify it? That Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies perfectly well to this - merely being true does not make it worthy of inclusion. As for album tracklistings, they are contained within articles about the album, not as articles in their own right. Miremare 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not an indiscriminate because it has a very clear and defined limit - songs that appear in the FIFA games. An indiscriminate list has no such limits. 96T 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It may not be indiscriminate in that it's not, for example, List of tracks that happen to be in both FIFA and my CD collection but it lists everything regardless of relative importance or notability, therefore it's indiscriminate in its scope. It's also a list for a list's sake, therefore also indiscriminate in a broader sense. But notability is the crux of the matter here anyway. Miremare 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        United Nations member states also lists everything, but that doesn't make it an indiscriminate list. And I still think this is notable because music is such an important element in the highly notable FIFA series. 96T 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        United Nations member states is a little more important and notable than FIFA music. Any omission in that would be unacceptable, as the group and its constituent entities are all independently highly notable, and again, that list is part of a larger article. In contrast, FIFA series soundtracks are an unimportant part of the games in that they barely affect any aspect of it. The article demonstrates no notability and notability is not inherited from the FIFA series itself; it must be established seperately with multiple reliable independent sources providing significant coverage to the subject. Miremare 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand what you mean, and I understand that there are notability issues here, but my main point is that this article can't be deleted per WP:IINFO because it isn't an indiscriminate list. 96T 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Other than in the ways I mentioned, you mean? Miremare 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, to respond to an earlier point, there are independent coverage for the soundtracks on sites like IGN, articles dealing solely with the soundtrack. matt91486 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I did a quick search, and found, among other hits, [26], [27], [28], [29] ... 96T 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but you'll also need some non-ign.com sources (multiple are required) to establish notability. But even if this is done, this article is still just a list (and an indiscriminate one in at least two ways) of every song featured in the series, which is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article. At best, notable songs from the soundtracks should be mentioned on the individual game pages, not collected here in their entirety. Miremare 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Countering deletion arguments above:

Notability has been established per the links above, and quick Google searches for FIFA+soundtrack turn up lots of other non trivial coverage by reliable sources. See: [30] [31] [32] for some examples - the actual coverage is a lot larger. The very fact that these reliable sources devote news items and articles to the soundtracks of this series is extraordinary, as that is beyond the normal coverage any game's sountrack would get. To counter the "notability is not inherited" argument, this coverage in reliable sources was related to, but independent of, the FIFA games themselves. The soundtracks were the primary topics for these articles, and as such are notable.
Countering the nominator's argument of the WP:V violation: in an article about a notable topic for which there are a lot of sources available to possibly source it, this argument is no reason for deletion per WP:PROBLEM.
This list is not indiscriminate in any way. The boundaries of the topic are very well defined (only those specific music tracks of this series are included), and the contents are not "thrown together" or "jumbled". The term indiscriminate certainly does not apply here. Possibly the nominator meant that the scope of the list is too broad, but the size of the article (meeting WP:SIZE) and the readability of the article argue otherwise. To employ the slippery slope fallacy consciously, I wonder which lists would not be indiscriminate according to the nominator's standards. A response including a comparison of "discriminateness" between this list and such an apparently discriminate list would be appreciated.

An argument for keeping, independent of the arguments why it should not be deleted:

This list serves the purpose of providing readers a comprehensive list of soundtracks for notable games, of which the soundtracks are part (independently notable too). This list is used for comparison between the soundtracks of the different games, and allows for the reader to find more in-depth information related to the critical discussion of those soundtracks in the articles about the games and the series itself. It is a fine example of why lists exist on Wikipedia at all.

The above covers all arguments used for deletion, I believe, leaving no arguments standing. If I missed a point, feel free to drop me a note and I will see if I concur. If this is the case, I will most probably change my opinion on the issue, or address the points of concern. User:Krator (t c) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Krator, I'm quite surprised at your stance on this. As you're aware there's been various discussions at WT:CVG about whether things like lists of guns in FPSs and lists of cars in racing games are appropriate, the majority (including you, I seem to remember) consider them inappropriate. How listing music tracks, in a dedicated article, for a series of games to which music is even less relevent than guns or cars to their respective genres, is baffling to me. Being true and verifiable is no reason for inclusion. Anyway, interpretations of the word "indiscriminate" aside, there's still no reason that the most notable of these shouldn't be mentioned (rather than listed) on the games' individual pages rather than here - this is a list for a list's sake and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. You may say that the inclusion of certain guns or cars are not notable, whereas FIFA soundtracks are because there are sources, but I've seen articles on these sites on things like cars in Gran Turismo 3 and guns in Black (video game), and various other minutiae churned out because people are interested in reading about the features of an upcoming game. ign.com on weapons in Halo 3? teamxbox.com on weapons in Halo 3? Does this mean weapons in Halo 3 should be listed? How about ign.com on cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 (considering List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2 was deleted, I wouldn't rate its chances)? According to you, no. And rightly so, as these things are all just part of the coverage of the games as a whole. Sites like ign, gamershell etc dedicate articles to practically anything to do with a game before release, especially the more popular ones, depending on what the publisher announces. Why does the fact that they reprint EA's press releases occasionally make an encyclopedia article in this case? Miremare 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your surprise on my stance is probably due to the fact that it is not a stance on principle concerning lists of elements in a video game. Lists are generally bad, but when sources specifically discuss elements of a game in a non-trivial way, we should not delete articles based upon those sources. Let me restate that, as it is the crux of my stance. Your analogy with weapons and car lists is an interesting one, and you are indeed correct that I am firmly against inclusion of those lists in Wikipedia. Why this one, then?

First and foremost, in this specific case, I was unsatisfied by the arguments for deletion, and as a big fan of sound arguments, I had to refute the arguments used here. The proper argument for deletion of this article would be excessive detail. One could quite conclusively argue for a deletion of this article because a list has too much detail, and that critical discussion is the limit for Wikipedia's coverage on the topic. Your reference to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is the first reference to this argument in the debate.

Secondly, I believe that soundtracks are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than weapons or cars by definition. The sound is a distinct and separate part of every video game, while for example weapons and cars are part of the gameplay. Most of the review sites that use composite scores based on specific areas of the game use the sound as a distinct point.

Thirdly, this list is composed of real world elements, instead of fictional cars or weapons. Many of these elements have Wikipedia articles of their own. One could conclusively argue for the inclusion of links to all artists and/or songs featured in a game to be needed for an article to be comprehensive and per WP:BTW. Your argument that every article should discuss the soundtracks is valid and true, but the article about the series should discuss them as well. For this purpose, a list is the best format - see for example Dow Jones Industrial Average#Companies comprising the DJIA for another list which is in that format purely because the format is the best for conveying the information. In fact, this reasoning applies to just about every list in Wikipedia. It is also true that your arguments why this list is a directory applies to every list as well. Take a look at a few random lists from WP:FL, and try to argue if it would not be possible for the elements in that list to be discussed in prose in individual articles instead.

To conclude, I will add that a general trend of "lists of video game elements are bad" is a dangerous development, as every list should considered for its own merit. Many are not valid, true. But, as we can see from the above debate, it seems quite unclear what constitutes a directory or game guide and what does not. This article is an example of a list worthy of keeping. User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit the original deletion argument was a bit rough around the edges, maybe because I thought it was as good as closed from the off. But I'm afraid, based on your above post, I still don't quite understand why you believe this list should be kept and others not. That the list comprises real-world elements is another thing that we discussed at WT:CVG, and in fact many video game lists do seem to comprise real world elements - such as the above mentioned car lists. I can't remember for sure, but I'm pretty positive that the "List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2" would have had a blue link in every case, what with the game featuring well known models and manufacturers (in fact, it did: here it is). Same for lists of tracks in racing games or lists of teams or leagues in sports games, or lists of weapons in shooters where real-world ones are featured.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average article is different, I believe, just as the United Nations member states mentioned somewhere above, because it is important in these articles that the lists are complete, whereas in a case like this, and indeed with most video game lists, completeness is never necessary, unless it's "List of games by developer X" or something similar, but anything from inside a game, you don't need to be so specific about, it's just - to knowingly use a contentious word - crufty. I'm not backing this up with policy or something, that's just where I believe the line should be drawn. I believe opinion on video game lists basically comes down to whether or not there's anything special or notable about the items in question in the context of the game itself, and with music I don't see how there is, especially in this case; EA have simply licenced some tracks that they thought appropriate and that were available at the right price. Sound is indeed a distinct part of every game and one that is often rated itself in composite review scores, but so is gameplay, and that we don't tell people how to play games is already well established. You seem to agree in a way, or at least not disagree, with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, though it doesn't sway you, could you elaborate on that? Miremare 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this list does not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, because of the arguments in my previous note ("Second" and "Third" points specifically). Your analogy with cars in racing lists is incorrect, because of the subtle difference that cars in racing games are fictitious representations of real world elements, while the soundtracks are real world elements in themselves. This subtle difference is also recognised by Wikipedia's policy on "In Popular Culture" sections. The general consensus is that when a mention in popular culture does not particularly revolve around the subject of the article, such a mention should not be written about in the article. An appearance in a racing game should not appear in the article about a car. To contrast, in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it.

To my argument that sound is a distinct part of the video game, your response is again an analogy, this time with gameplay being a distinct part as well, and that we evidently do not include lists of gameplay elements. The difference here is that the list of gameplay elements usually excluded from Wikipedia are relatively much more detailed and "lists for their own sake" than soundtracks. A list of tracks quite accurately describes the whole sound aspect of a game, while a list of for example racing cars describes only a tiny part of the gameplay. For example, lists of racing tracks, arcade mode levels, etc. are equally detailed lists of gameplay elements. Furthermore, I point towards my very first argument for keeping at the top of this discussion, noting the particular purpose of this list. The fact that the list covers a series, and not a single game, adds to the value of this list as well. User:Krator (t c) 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't explain why soundtracks being real-world, as apposed to representations of real world, is important and why such a distinction should be made. It seem odd to me that you say lists of cars and racetracks describe only a "tiny part of the gameplay", when soundtracks are completely irrelevant to the gameplay and indeed have no impact on the game itself. The cars and tracks at least make a difference to the game whereas the soundtracks make none. FIFA 98's soundtrack I admit could be seen as notable, and should definitely be covered in its article, as it was pretty much unheard of at the time for a game to include licensed music, but it's the norm nowadays. This seems like an arbitrary distinction, claiming that ign sources justify a soundtrack list, but the same ign sources cannot justify a car list..? Miremare 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is detoriating, and this will most probably be my last comment on this page. I believe I have sufficiently defended my points, with sufficient sound arguments, though they may lack the rhetoric to convince you. The above note contains quite a lot of distinct statements, so I will dissect it and respond one by one.

"This doesn't explain why soundtracks being real-world, as opposed to representations of real world, is important and why such a distinction should be made."

Copy pasted from above: "... the subtle difference that cars in racing games are fictitious representations of real world elements, while the soundtracks are real world elements in themselves. This subtle difference is also recognised by Wikipedia's policy on "In Popular Culture" sections. The general consensus is that when a mention in popular culture does not particularly revolve around the subject of the article, such a mention should not be written about in the article. An appearance in a racing game should not appear in the article about a car. To contrast, in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it."

"It seem odd to me that you say lists of cars and racetracks describe only a "tiny part of the gameplay", when soundtracks are completely irrelevant to the gameplay and indeed have no impact on the game itself."

My point is: A list of soundtracks ("sound elements") goes a long way to describe the sound of a game, while lists of cars or racetracks ("gameplay elements") or whatever describe only a tiny part of the gameplay. Note that your last statement is purely your own opinion. Your statements that boil down to "sound is a trivial part of video games" are controversial and should surely not be a reason for deletion. Reliable sources argue otherwise - not only the articles linked above, but for the general topic of sound and video games, one can find many examples. Interviews with composers, and even quite some articles on Google scholar.

This seems like an arbitrary distinction, claiming that ign sources justify a soundtrack list, but the same ign sources cannot justify a car list..?

I have never claimed that the IGN sources alone justify a car list, and I have never claimed they would justify a car list. The argument based on those sources is simply: the notability concerns used for deletion here are invalid, which (as it seems from a lack of response on that point) was quite conclusive. But, there is more to inclusion than being notable, namely the "What Wikipedia is not" policy so frequently named in our brief discussion above. If a car list would be up for deletion tomorrow, given that it would not be an extraordinary one with special merit, I would argue for deletion not because of a lack of sources (as you claim I would), but because of the "Wikipedia is not a directory" argument. That argument is the basis for "Listcruft", a more commonly used argument. User:Krator (t c) 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it."

Yes, I know what you said, I just don't see what it has to do with this article. I'm not saying don't mention FIFA in the articles about the songs, or the songs in the articles about the games, I'm saying FIFA soundtracks simply don't prove any more notable than any of the other examples of game lists that sites such as ign (note that I wasn't referring to only ign, but all the other such sites previously mentioned too) come up with, as these are the only sources we have, none of which discuss "FIFA soundtracks" as an actual subject in its own right, but simply list individual soundtracks as their details become available from the publisher. This is justification for writing about each on in the game articles, but there is no justification that I can see for devoting a whole article for this. There is no benefit to having these games listed together; there is no connection between the soundtracks of each one whatsoever, which, one could argue, makes this a fairly indiscriminate list. Whatever, this is still just a list for a list's sake.

2. That the music has no impact on the gameplay of FIFA may sound like my own opinion if you've never played the games, but it's a fact. The music in question plays during the menu screens of each game, when there is by definition no gameplay happening. During the gameplay itself, there is the noise of the crowd, the TV-style commentary, occasional noises from the players and the thump of the ball being kicked. There's no music at all during the gameplay - this isn't a Guitar Hero situation where the music has relevance to the game itself, it's quite the opposite.

3. That's not what I said, I said that you're saying these sources justify a music list but do not justify a car list, which is where the arbitrary distinction comes in. That a car list should be deleted if it isn't "an extraordinary one with special merit" is fine, but where is the extraordinaryness or special merit here? Regarding notability, my response was that anything can be considered notable if ign etc are what we're using as sources, because they regularly report on such minor game details before release of the game in question, but that does not these details automatically worth of their own articles. Your argument seems to rest on this distinction between real-world and representation of real-world, which, to all intents and purposes makes not a jot of difference - these lists, whether cars, guns, music, or whatever, are still minor elements of the games and it seems a little disingenuous to be insisting on such a major difference between the importance of gameplay elements and music. Which is more important to you in a game? Miremare 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't have the time to react on any of the others right now, I will briefly respond to #2 with a simple statement - Wikipedia does not only cover the gameplay of a game, but all notable aspects of a game, including development, reception, and indeed, sound. User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's up to us to judge the importance or relevance of each aspect of each game when reporting on it and giving it the WP:WEIGHT it deserves. As I've said above, I agree with you that we should report on the soundtracks, just not in the form of a list of questionable value that groups them all together for no real reason. I might also mention that series of soundtrack albums are not listed in their entirety, but linked to their own pages, such as this. Miremare 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't understand why this is a notable information. My opinion was formed only by the info written the article and the nomination. I didn't full read the dialogue between User:Miremare and User:Krator. -- Magioladitis 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with extreme prejudice. DS 03:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skunting[edit]

Neologism. Thought I found a reference on urbandictionary.com, but turns out they don't have a definition either. Don't think there's much point transwikiing this one at the moment. A^RendedWinter 00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced neologism. --Alksub 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish we could bend the rules to delete this as nonsense. But, some people prefer to stick by the book. Oh well. --Maxim_(talk) 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom at best. More likely it seems to me to be a WP:HOAX. --Moonriddengirl 01:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maxim. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 01:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are found. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Zone[edit]

I don't think that being "the largest car dealer" in a particular area makes that dealership notable. Other than that, it is a very short article providing little context. The entire "article" is 3 sentances, and one of them is just the company's website. That makes this seem like an ad. Rjd0060 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like spam to me. A Google search turned up nothing from a reputable third-party conferring notability (some blogs, self-promotion, etc.) Accounting4Taste 00:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that being the largest car dealer doesn't really make for a great amount of notability. I originally placed a speedy on this (but thinking about it now, maybe CSD:A7 wasn't the best way to go) A^RendedWinter 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw that you speedy'd it but it was declined. I think the admin should have removed it anyways. There is nothing in the article. And what is there, could be considered spam, well IMO. - Rjd0060 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, though not as much as spam as one article I found, which claimed to be the "official website of (group or corporation whose name escapes me). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 15:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Not notable as there aren't any references. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam and not notable. Oyster guitarist 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Please pursue any further merge proposals through the editorial route. Daniel 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winzapper[edit]

Contested WP:SPEEDY, nominating at the author's request. I can't find any WP:RS on Google that this software has been reviewed, and thus it is not notable by our standards. shoy 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its release was an important event in IT security, causing log manipulation via selective event deletion to change from being a theoretical risk to a practical one. Stayman Apple 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as plenty of third-party sources have been added since listing. Alba 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 2 and 4 don't mention the product specifically at all. Source 3 seems like a press release, and thus is not an independent source. Source 5 seems like a blog, which does not meet our criteria as a reliable source, see WP:RS. shoy 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around for some reports of Winzapper actually being used in computer intrusions (e.g. by searching for +arrested +Winzapper) but found nothing. There may not be enough information out there for the article to grow much more. If that turns out to be the case, I would not be opposed to merging it with Security Log. There is some pertinent information here that is not in the Security Log article. Stayman Apple 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given arguments now in operation, I now vote for merge and redirect to Security log. Alba 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable and new sources have surfaced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Strong delete. There are no reliable secondary sources cited, and the concept that log files are vulnerable to those with high level access (authorized or not) is basic security knowledge in any operating system. That is why log files are inadmissible as evidence in court, unless the logs were hard-copy printed in real time as the events were logged, and then only the original printouts are admissible. Any user with root (or equivalent) permissions on a system can change anything. This seems like a simple promotional article. It may be just notable enough to be mentioned in Security Log, so a merge might be appropriate. - Crockspot 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we should include the info about admissibility in court in the security log article. Do you have any other sources relating to that? Captain Zyrain 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No reliable second sources? What about the Forensic Footprint article? http://forensics.8thdaytech.com/winzapper-forensic-foorprint What about the Microsoft Security White Paper? http://www.seifried.org/security/os/microsoft/windowsnt.html Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about them? Frankly, they both look like blogs to me, which are generally not reliable sources. shoy 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - shoy is correct, neither of those is a reliable secondary source. They are both self-published sources. - Crockspot 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, what about the Hacking Exposed ref (just added to article; http://books.google.com/books?id=UVchzZjT-jcC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=winzapper&source=web&ots=EnWURte1ct&sig=iCwKQHMmQqC1rMwMM6SODUZ0ZIc ). Also, Winzapper is mentioned in Certified Ethical Hacker courses (e.g. http://www.onlc.com/outline.asp?ccode=SCEH41ONLINE ). Plus it was covered in Sys Admin (just added to article; see http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9366/sam0104o/0104o.htm ) Captain Zyrain 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The last link does not even mention winzapper. There is no notability guideline for software that I can find, but all the other notability guidelines require that the subject be the subject of non-trivial publications. These are just mentions, and would seem to be trivial to me. If there was an article or two that Winzapper was the main subject of, in a reliable magazine or trade publication, that would help your case. But I am still not convinced that notability is established for a stand-alone article at this time. Sorry. - Crockspot 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, my bad, I gave the wrong link before. I have corrected it[33]. Captain Zyrain 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, specifically the fact that there are no secondary sources. I agree there may be a few sentances that can be put into Security Log, but not much. - Rjd0060 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor all non-overlapping information to Security log. Winzapper has significance as a proof-of-concept tool, plus it is still apparently "the only shrink-wrapped tool that you can use to selectively delete events from the Security log" (per http://www.ultimatewindowssecurity.com/ebookChapter2.html ) Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted in other AfD discussions, lack of reliable sources is indicative of notability issues. /Blaxthos 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have at least two sources that meet WP:RS, one a book in the Hacking Exposed series and the other an article in Sys Admin. But the info has already been refactored to Security Log anyway so it's kinda moot at this point. Captain Zyrain 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as free utility software is as about as notable as a paperclip. --Gavin Collins 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true of free utility software as a whole, then GIMP and Pine (e-mail client) would be deletable as well. Captain Zyrain 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia does have an article about Paper clips. (So that's a poor rationale for deleting this article.) Rray 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhood[edit]

Anything that can be mention here can be mentioned in the article man itself. We don't have separate articles for boyhood, girlhood, womanhood, motherhood, fatherhood, adulthood, personhood etc. so we shouldn't have this article either. Voortle 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Man. Chubbles 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rediret to Man per nom. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 16:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man, with disambiguator to the article penis Will ^(talk) 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man. Also incorporate the see also section to the Man article--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho massacre[edit]

POV fork from Joshua, check creator's history. Avi 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clarifying opinion above Avi 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV with questionable source, it hardly will be attributed. If someone find WP:RS for it, merge back to Joshua. Carlosguitar 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV. Tiptoety 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has tremendous potential to become the subject of an edit war concerning the indiscriminate slaughter of the ancestors of the Palestinians by the ancestors of the Israelis, who were no doubt aided by the ancestors of the Americans. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Chief Powhatan was there for sure :) -- Y not? 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I appreciate your irony Malik. I am angry about discussion of this topic because the politics of it are the real issue. For goodness sake, death is horrible, not accademic. However, reporting it is part of encyclopedic work. Let's help one another to report politically sensitive topics fairly, not knock them on the head from inception. But in this case, I agree, Battle of Jericho is the page for it to be covered. Alastair Haines 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I agree: if there is serious literature concerning the Biblical siege and destruction of Jericho, discussion of it belongs in Battle of Jericho. That article already discusses what archaeology and biblical criticism have to say about the subject. Additional information about other modern views, including polemical use of the battle as a metaphor for Israeli-Palestinian relations (if it is, in fact, used that way), also should be considered. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Highly subjective, no sources cited, poorly written, and anything that might be valid can go into the articles for Joshua or Canaan. Gh5046 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Spawn Man 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork with no content. 23skidoo 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Compare the article to Jericho#Walls of Jericho which gives a fairly good scholar account of the event. Jon513 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Jon513. Pete.Hurd 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The use of the term 'massacre' is an anachronistic (an probably incorrect) bit of original research, besides the POV problem. HG | Talk 07:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do some research, people - the POV fork is from Battle of Jericho, so that is the potential merger target. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POV and OR. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm not sure how this article could be salvaged, given the degree of OR and POV. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there are lots of masacres of Israelites/Jews in the Hebrew Bible but they don't get articles of their own (even when they should) so this is obviously meant to be a POV magnet/fork to stir up trouble for the Israelites/Jews, but it fails so miserably. As User:Fayenatic states, any information about this should probably go into Battle of Jericho. IZAK 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , WP:POVFORK. --Shirahadasha 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we keep out all motives here from users i fail to see why this article must be deleted.--יודל 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Fayenatic. A lot of people are expressing opinions here without research. This is definitely an encyclopedic topic on its own. Dozens of books have been written about this specific topic. My impression is people are rushing to sit in judgement of other users, rather than considering objectively what Wiki should do. In this case, people are probably correct about both matters, however I am concerned at the way people are quick to post judgements without actually making a verifiable case. If enough people know to say OR, POV, blah, blah it looks decisive. However, there is no POV or OR in the article. There's not enough there! It refers to a documented fact that has been covered in thousands of Bible commentaries. My impression of the Wiki process here is that ignorant people line up to censor the activity of other users. Look into your hearts! And admin, do something about this! Alastair Haines 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. --יודל 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

(long) Comment I'm probably not as familiar with the topic as I could be, granted. However, from my standpoint, I see two lines about one people massacring another. It's POV, in that the massacring nation would term it much differently. An NPOV lede would be something along the lines of "The battle of Jericho was fought in the Somethingth-century BC between the people of Canaan and the tribes of Israel. The battle was won by the Israelites, and resulted in the destruction of the city and the death of much of its population." It was an event, it occured in a given time and place, involving given sets of people, and it is notable because of X. That would be a neutral POV. The historicity controversy acknowledges a contrary view - that the event is myth rather than fact - but doesn't discuss the position at all other than to acknowledge that it exists. Again, favoring one viewpoint (the massacre happened) versus another (It didn't). Further, the source for the controversy (source two) appears to be a blog of some sort, published by the author of the piece. Who is this person, and why is he a reliable soruce? That's where I see Original Research - there aren't reliable sources to back a claim. With all respect, I know there are scholarly sources out there that could flesh this topic out to a proper article length. However, in its current form, with the current title, I do not believe the article to be salvageable. An expansion of material on the Battle of Jericho might work under the Joshua article, or as an NPOV article under that title (Battle of Jericho) - but there just isn't anything here to merge. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and thank you ZZ. I agree with you on all points. It might seem tedious to spell out all the issues, but that's part of being fair imo. We try to present all options fairly in articles. We should do so in considering noms for deletion. Delete the namespace because it's not required, delete the content, rather than merge, because it's not a serious attempt to address the issue. As regards issues related to the contributer, I would feel more comfortable were these handled in a separate forum. I'm not really interested in this article or discussion so much as us conflating dealing with text, and dealing with contributers. I'm sure others understand the point and can monitor and act on it. I genuinely have confidence you will. Peace. Alastair Haines 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, PS Jericho, according to archaeology has thousands of years of history prior to any biblical account, including a long period of not being occupied. There is every reason to imagine a second millenium genocide would not have been the first, if in fact it did occur. In case I was unclear, the facts I'm refering to are the documented claims that the genocide was theologically justifiable, whether one agrees, disagrees or considers such things irrelevant. Alastair Haines 07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yossiea ^(talk) 04:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork of Battle of Jericho ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism[edit]

- Note. Please see this version of the article [34], since a number of supporting reliable sources have been deleted by AfD nominator.Biophys 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention that Smb (talk · contribs) has just tried to censor out this note (diff) Colchicum 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that I attempted to explain my action to Colchicum (diff), and that this user brazenly deleted my comment with the edit summary "get out commie" (diff). smb 06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to do this by vandalizing my user page. I excercise full authority over my userpage when it is not explicitely prohibited by a WP policy. Colchicum 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to apologise for your first disgraceful comment, and also withdraw your false accusation. smb 16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Everything is in the page history (though in principle it is possible that you have mixed up my userpage and user talkpage, it is highly unlikely, as you seem to be an experienced editor). There is nothing to apologize for. Could you please stop disussing irrelevant stuff here? I am not particularly interested in your personality. Colchicum 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. The phrase "communist terrorism" is occasionally used to refer to many different things, but there is no clear definition of the term and it is never used in counterterrorism scholarship. The page is a barely readable hodge-podge of WP:SYN violations, bringing a number of organizations together under the umbrella, using WP:FRINGE theories like Pacepa's ridiculous claim that the KGB created the PLO and making them seem mainstream. It cites people talking about "Red terror" and combines it with material about theorists like Nechaev and Bakunin (more widely understood as anarchists than communists) and other material. Nearly every citation I've looked at on the page is taken out of context to try to make a case for "communist terrorism." csloat 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So none of the thirty odd sources quoted in the piece matter then? Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence official to have defect from the Soviet bloc, would disagree with the assertion that 'communist terrorism' isn't a useful term. This from a piece in the Wall Street Journal site [35] on August 7, 2007. 'The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.'

As for it being a new fangled 'neologism' the phrase was used by Time Magazine in a piece on the Malay Communist Insurgency in 1951 - the piece, by Manfred Gottfried, chief of foreign correspondents for TIME & LIFE, begins 'They speak of Emergency here. It means Communist terrorism. The Emergency is not getting any better. Every day or so another planter or soldier or constable is killed. .' [36]

The nominator also says it isn't a term used in counterterrorism scholarship. He's obviously unfamiliar with the book 'Terrorism verses Democracy' by Paul Wilkinson which states 'Italy, Germany, France and Belguim, all of whom have deployed the hardline approach against the Red Army or fighting Communist terrorism of the 1970s and early 1980s, succeeded in these efforts' [37] .

There are any number of such references if one cares to look for them. Perhaps the nominator was too preoccupied with this [38] to look them up for himself. Nick mallory 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are references that use the phrase but there are no references that define the phrase in any systematic way, and the references that do use the phrase use it in many different ways. Putting them together like this clearly violates WP:SYN; that is the problem here. Finally, I don't know you, Nick, but I would prefer if you chose not to personally attack me by questioning my motives here. My motive is to keep original research essays off of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. csloat 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a neologism, that it wasn't used in the literature etc, it's been clearly shown that you're entirely wrong. In fact several editors have entirely demolished your rationale for deletion and yet you still want to remove this article. I can only assume that, given your editing history, you simply dislike this article because it clashes with your own political point of view. That's not a personal attack, merely an observation. 'I don't like it' isn't a reason for deletion. Nick mallory 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per csloat and reasons explained on the talk page. There is WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN, with conclusions being drawn that would not last two seconds on their respective main pages. There might be a grain of truth in some of these sources, but two or three users have taken the grain and made it into a whole loaf. smb 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD doesn't exist to debate the quality of an article, merely whether such an article should exist. I've clearly demonstrated that the term 'Communist terrorism' is of long standing and has been covered by multiple independent sources and therefore has a place on Wikipedia. The content of the article will evolve over time but the concept of 'Communist terrorism' is not 'fringe' and is not a synthesis or product of original research. The fact that this article runs counter to your political views doesn't make it illegitimate. Nick mallory 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page does not require a whittle knife and a bit of time -- it needs a heavy axe. User:csloat is correct. The phrase "communist terrorism" appears occasionally in many different contexts. It was also considered a propaganda term during the Cold War.

• President Reagan also began his term of office by declaring his administration's concern to fight "Communist terrorism" (a charge which the C.I.A. itself subsequently described as "unsubstantiated" in a public statement two months later) [John McMurtry, 1984]

• In February 1982, his government tabled the Steyn and Rabie Commission Reports, dealing with the press and security, respectively, and publicly charged that the spectre of communist "terrorism" (a politically expedient "buzzword" for repressive regimes seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the United States government) ... [PA Marsh, 1982]

In violation of policy, this page takes as its starting point a loose term and gives undue weight to fringe theories. "Communist terrorism" in the present context truly is the stuff of legend. [39] Ion Mihai Pacepa is a notable conspiracy theorist, but not all of his theories are notable. smb 13:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is not listed in WP:DP as a reason for deletion. Colchicum 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's implicit in WP:FRINGE, which when "treated with common sense" helps establish "which non-mainstream 'theories' should have articles in Wikipedia". smb 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (unfortunately because I think that Wikipedia pays too little attention to theories) this is about a phenomenon, not a theory. There is nothing explanatory in it. Colchicum 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a neologism. See [40], [41]. There are country studies that concentrate specifically on this topic, e.g. Dennis Deletant, Communist Terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965. NY; St. Martin's, 1999; Yonah Alexander & Dennis Pluchinsky, Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations. London: Cass, 1992; Carlisle Barracks, War Against Terrorism: Malaysia's Experience in Defeating Terrorism, among many others. E.g. in Malaya it was a conventionalized term, by no means a neologism. As to the other things, these are not listed in WP:DP among valid reasons for deletion. I perfectly understand that commies dislike such topics, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Colchicum 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "commie," and my problem here is not "I dont like it." My problem with the page is WP:SYN. "Communist terror" and "Communist terrorism" refer to different things; the former is taken care of here while the latter is a neologism that has no currency in any scholarly literature. It is true that the phrase occurs occasionally but the problem is none of you have found a single source that defines the phrase in any substantive manner. Working out a definition that you think is implicit in the various authors that use the phrase is the definition of WP:OR. csloat 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0) I don't care about your problems. Don't bother 1) Wrong. Red Terror refers specifically to Communist Terror in Russia during the Russian Civil War 2) This term abounds in scholarly literature, quite systematically, as for the Malayan and Vietnamese insurgency at least. Following your logic, we have to delete more than a million of articles. E.g. do we have a definition for History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is about phenomena, not about terms. Colchicum 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Abounds in the scholarly literature"? Are you being intentionally self-parodic? Your link shows a grand total of 27 scholarly articles using the phrase in many different ways referring to different countries. If it really "abounds" how hard is it to find a definition? According to your standard of "scholarship," we should have a right-wing terrorism article, since that produces even more hits in jstor. But right-wing terrorism redirects to terrorism, which is where this page should also redirect. If we can agree to redirect the page to terrorism, it needn't be deleted. csloat 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I forgot to add - you are not "following my logic" when you compare this to articles like "History of ____". This article is allegedly about a specific phenomenon with a name. If you want History of Communists in terrorist groups or History of Soviet involvement in terrorist activities or something to that effect, I wouldn't be asking to delete the article. But "Communist terrorism" presumably describes a consistent phenomenon and there is simply no record of that phrase being used in that manner. csloat 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Colchicum 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced and detailed. There's room for improvement on the editing, but prior to 1991, there were entire nations under the oversight of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It wasn't the most benevolent organization in history. Just as one might not be able to "prove", to you, the involvement of the CIA in various events, some can dismiss the idea that there were operations directed against the U.S. and the other Western nations. No, the Communist Party didn't invent the PLO, anymore than the United States invented Israel... but in both cases, regular charitable donations were graciously accepted. Mandsford 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Soviets dominated Eastern Europe is not being contested here, and there are numerous pages that discuss that already. Any influence the KGB had on the PLO belongs on these pages KGB and PLO. This is not about politics and I find it offensive that several people jump to that conclusion. This is about a page named for a neologism that has never been defined. The fact that the neologism is being used on the page to soapbox about a fringe theory is the symptom; the underlying problem is that this violates WP:SYN. csloat 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like the title... maybe we can call it "Communist mischief" Mandsford 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with what I "like," and the problem here is not just the title. Certainly your suggested title has much the same problem as the current one. csloat 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is completely without merit. There is no support for SYN, lack of notability or that the idea is a neologism. "Communist terror" turns up over 30,000 google hits (and the fact that much of it is state terrorism does not diminish the point), "communist terrorism" turns up almost 3,000 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1440 hits. In the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic. It has been used in the mainstream media, see here and here, by major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (here, here and here. One editor has added citations to the work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky (which establish that the article is not SYN), but the nominator keeps deleting them. The nominator keeps making arguments on the discussion page that much of the search results for "Communist terror" and "communist terrorism" are about terror commited by the former Eastern Bloc nations. His point is a distinction without a difference, those incidents are state terrorism but they are still "communist terrorism" nonetheless. The idea that the article is a fringe theory is perhaps the most ridiculous of them all. Anyone who's heard of the Red Brigade, November 17 or FARC know it's communist terrorism; we're not talking about flat earth or little blue men here. This is plainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the nominator's part. Mamalujo 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a very notable subject: terrorism committed by communists. The content was supported by multiple reliable sources. This has nothing to do with "neologisms". If the title of the article is not good, the article should be renamed, not deleted. I think the title is informative.Biophys 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used in enough books ([42]) to be a notable concept.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BUT the article cannot be used as excuse for POV potted summaries of a variety of revolutionary and/or terrorist movements--which they are, depends upon one's own political views. I know what I think of most of these groups--I also know that other people think differently. The actions of the CP within what became the USSR is one broad topic, most of which is extensively discussed elsewhere. the efforts of what can loosely be called the Comintern in the period before WW II is another--and not well discussed here. All this is background to the real topic of the article--the activities of Soviet sponsored terrorism during the cold War and afterwards. The materials on the US/Canada are interesting and could well be discussed in more detail.. It's based upon the Mitrokhin Archive and Viktor Suvorov , two sources whose reliability is somewhat uncertain. The various movements elsewhere all have their own articles. Trying to write a comprehensive overview of them is difficult, and the editors of the present article have not done it in a NPOV manner. They have in particular relied upon very weak and partisan sources, freely using weasel words , most notably "described as". I have strong doubts about the accuracy of the descriptions of some of the groups. Many of these groups are seen by their supporters as heros or martyrs. Probably almost everyone here disagrees, but that does not affect the writing of the article. It has to be written so that actual supporters of the groups would find the description balanced. AIn spite of these difficulties, the topic is notable. csloat's criticisms of the article are in my opinion well justified. DGG (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said: It has to be written so that actual supporters of the groups would find the description balanced. I strongly agree that views of terrorism ideologists must be represented in such articles for the sake of NPOV. That is why I cited Marx, Stalin, Nechaev, Latsis, and marxist Kautsky in this article. But csloat deleted precisely these materials; he deleted citations of Stalin, Marx and Kautsky. Hence my objections about WP:NPOV at the talk page. Yes, csloat provided some valid criticism, and modifications were made to reflect some of his points, but he blindly reverted everything.Biophys —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Marxist-Leninist ideology, adopted by many Communist regimes and movements all over the world, terror(ism) is considered an important tool in achieving the World revolution. The result of such a policy was a multitude of terror campaigns and terrorist attacks, which should be detailed in this article. (And a number of them already are -- a good start!) Concerns of neologism appear to be a case of WP:IHAVENTHEARDOFIT, and should be discounted accordingly. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

odd that people say they havent heard of this concept -- a major concern of most of the world for the last 50 years. There seems to be a confusing mix of political POVs involved here. all the more reason for an article.DGG (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying they never heard of this concept; others are simply attributing that view to someone but it is unclear why. What we haven't heard of -- and still haven't heard of, despite all the "keep" votes -- is a single reliable source identifying the specific neologism at issue here -- "communist terrorism" -- as an observable and definable entity. This is something specific and different from "communist terror" and "communists who use terrorism," which are two other concepts that people are conflating here. I understand that conflating such concepts serves a propaganda function, but it does not serve an encyclopedic function. Anyway I think this will all be solved with a name change in due time -- "Communism and terrorism" would be a much more accurate and verifiable title that more people could agree with, and would allow us to remove original research without deleting the article. csloat 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Well referenced article. Martintg 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, terrorist methods used by self identified communists does not make for a concept of "communist terrorism" --Martin Wisse 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well-written sourced article that is clearly notable and informative.--Southern Texas 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seems to be well referenced and notable. Where is the deletion rationale in first place? Suva Чего? 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is in the first "Delete" comment (which I wrote). Biophys (talk · contribs) posted a "Note" above it that should really have been on the talk page; in posting it at the top of this page he unfortunately obscured the deletion rationale. I'm not sure if it violates any specific Wikipedia policy that he did that but I do believe that it has unfortunately handicapped this discussion dramatically. However, when another user tried to correct Biophys' error, that user was ridiculed with phony and uncivil charges of "censorship." csloat 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is really an attempt to create a concept that is not present in the original research in any coherent way. --H22l 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the concepts are well know in modern history, the idea that the term is unknown is POV whitewashing. but this is a topic that gets caught between strong POVs and would benefit with some neutral editing. Hardyplants 10:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the concept is not new. "Communist terrorism" is just another version of the "War on terrorism", known before as the "Cold war". Meaning is the same, just the names unfolded. This one is more current and up to date. greg park avenue 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? You think this article should replace war on terrorism? csloat 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Hammarskjöld[edit]

I don't think he is too well known a politician/diplomat User:Therussianhy September 30, 2007

Speedy Keep - Secretary General of the UN. I won't rant here about the nomination. BPMullins | Talk 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A cardinal example of why new users should not be allowed to create AfDs. Alansohn 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Probably never heard of Kurt Waldheim either. Stick to stuff ya know, Theru. Mandsford 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable figure. 155.188.183.7 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reby Sky[edit]

What gives her notability? She doesn't have any significance as a Stuff.com model, her work on off-Broadway is in very minor roles, she fails WP:BIO and doesn't seem to have any upcoming work. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reby Sky is a legitimate, working model. See resume for an extensive list of credentials at: [43]

There are thousands of legitimate working models in this country. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not with her resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.68.209 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, stop saying RESPONSE:, sign your comments, and learn how to respond properly. Second of all, that's not a valid source, and even if it was, she has done very limited work to be considered a notable model. Please see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTINHERITED. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. There might be something notable about her, but the article fails to assert this or provide any citations. If nothing is added, deletion is not an unreasonable outcome. Vegaswikian 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. Links to individual credentials added on October 3, 2007 in EXTERNAL LINKS section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.68.209 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot's fourth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Slipknot's fourth studio album

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article shoots itself in the foot in the first line. Will ^(talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hasn't even been recorded yet. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's not crystalballism because it will happen. There are several untitled upcoming albums currently on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahmormons (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against untitled upcoming albums having an article on Wikipedia. However, I'm against articles who are based almost entirely on supposition. The article was created more than 6 months before the album was planning to be recorded! Many things can happen in 6 months: a band member dies, the band disbands, the band goes on hiatus, a band member goes to jail, a band member quits... Zouavman Le Zouave 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it hasn't even been named yet, odds are it's not notable. When it gets a name, re-create it. --UsaSatsui 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that predict future products. This article adheres to rule 1, rule 2 and rule 3. So it does not breach the policy. Jasca Ducato 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails rule 1 as a release is not guaranteed to take place (see Chinese Democracy), and 3 as it "presents speculation". Will ^(talk) 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than a complete and utter misinterpretation of what WP:Crystal, this article provide sources to demonstrate that a notable album from a notable group is forthcoming. Alansohn 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Article is mostly based on "ifs" and "maybes". LuciferMorgan 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme (I shouldn't even need to say this) Keep You people are obviously on crack, since there are numerous good sources with all the info on this upcoming release. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Slipknot will, believe it or not, be making a NEW ALBUM! Oh my God, isn't that an amazing concept, that a hugely-popular band will be making a new album while they're still popular? It's not as crazy as it sounds!!!!! (extreme sarcasm is now over) Besides, we'll just have to recreate the page when the album is released.Dark Executioner 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Comments[edit]

If you read this article, entitled "HEAVIEST SLIPKNOT ALBUM YET!" Roadrunner Records confirm that this album is coming out, and is not speculation. Thus the article does not meet afD criteria. Jasca Ducato 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Simpson's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jessica Simpson's fifth studio album

Hopelessly unverifiable crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for all articles you've nominated. If they've announced that it will be recorded, why should it be deleted? It's going to get created again anyway. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, your reason isn't in the speedy keep deadlines, and even if it is being announced it will be recorded, there's no guarentee on its release (e.g. Chinese Democracy - that's notable, however, for being pushed back a dozen times). Will ^(talk) 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:CRYSTAL. There are no references, no specific details, and the first line of the article reads "Details of the album are currently unknown," which is unencyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what WP:CRYSTAL was written for. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to support the elements and thus fails WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascada's Second Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cascada's Second Studio Album

Crystalgazing Will ^(talk) 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Taylor's Third Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BJ Taylor's Third Studio Album

unsourced crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if proper citation can be added otherwise I may change my vote. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Queen + Paul Rodgers studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources that would exclude this from the WP:CRYSTAL policy. - Rjd0060 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelis' fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kelis' fifth studio album

Crystal gazing article, only one near-reliable source (IndieLondon, not the Sun) Will ^(talk) 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ektor's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ektor's second studio album

Unsourced crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources that would exclude this from the WP:CRYSTAL policy. - Rjd0060 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's next studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christina Aguilera's next studio album

Unsourced crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayré's Second Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mayré's Second Studio Album

Unsourced crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig David's Fourth Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig David's Fourth Studio Album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Tarver Third Studio Album[edit]

unsourced, empty, non-conforming to the MOS, crystalgazing, etc Will ^(talk) 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious, I mean, per Stifle. (Will, "non-conforming to the MOS" is not a deletion criterion, and "empty" is CSD material. Just for future.) Rocket000 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is balls unitl such an album is actually confirmed by someone connected to the artist. A1octopus 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ryan's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lee Ryan's second studio album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RBD's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RBD's fifth studio album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No sources, could be completely made up. Most definately WP:CRYSTAL. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.M.'s fourteenth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/R.E.M.'s fourteenth studio album

unsoured CRYSTALgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It seems these deletions requests are flawed. There are lots of references to this particular untitled project, including official press announcements. There is a big difference between not having references listed, but having them exist; and crystalballing. The nominator should do some due diligence, and do an Internet search before making massive nominations. All you have to do is a site search at Billboard, Variety and Rolling Stone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There are some elements and sources but probably no quite enough so I refrain from going one side or another.--JForget 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources provided that demonstrate that album is in the works, specifically referenced as the group's 14th album. Alansohn 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an album that was written about by Rolling Stone [44] and has recieved a tremendous amount of coverage because it is going to actually be an album. The band has stated this by making Jacknife Lee the producer. There is no speculation. This nomination is a complete joke when it is being referenced to be completed in 2007/8. Yanksox 13:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a lot of precedent for articles on upcoming albums with specific press surrounding them, even if no name or release date has been yet specified. (See Radiohead's seventh studio album, Weather Underground (album), etc etc). Ario 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the nomination, there were no sources on the article, and it should really not be my burden to include them. That's the reason I didn't nominate (then-untitled) In Rainbows and Chinese Democracy. Will ^(talk) 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there's the "the article doesn't cite its sources" tag. Ario 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is an actual album that will actually see the light of day (unlike Chinese Democracy, which has a page) Doc Strange 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rammstein's sixth studio album

Barely sourced; more focused on Lindemann's departure hoax and the new album is mentioned only in passing Will ^(talk) 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real album that will come out 71.114.17.94 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: like the band, but also like WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dido's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:CRYSTAL and lacks references and facts. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep two references were already in the article, they just needed to be formatted. Everyone seems to be rubber stamping these articles without even reading them, and no one seems to be at least doing a search on the Internet to see what facts are available. Its hard to search for an untitled project, but not impossible. Please no more knee jerk comments, do the hard work before you write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per above reason Mikyt90 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be significant elements confirmed with some sources which does not violate the no crystal-balling policy Keep--JForget 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This nomination betrays a complete and utter misinterpretation of what WP:Crystal means. The article provide sources (including references to a third album) to demonstrate that a notable album from a notable artist is forthcoming. Alansohn 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at the version that was nominated before saying I'm misinterpretating WP:CRYSTAL :) Will ^(talk) 07:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, which you have clearly violated, and which requires you to pursue improvements to the article, merger and discussion before initiating an AfD. If you had followed policy, you would not have created your laundry list of AfDs. Alansohn 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see anywhere where it says I must. It says "Alternative methods", not "Required prerequisites". Besides, the burden of proof of sources is on those seeking to include, not delete. Will ^(talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The wording from Wikipedia:Deletion Policy is rather clear: "Alternatives to deletion: Editing - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The burden of respinsibility on those nominating articles for deletion is to seek ways to avoid deletion before throwing up a laundry list of AfDs. Unless you can demonstrate your efforts in this regard, you have violated Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I make four reversions in twenty-four hours, I've violated 3RR. If an admin fails to warn an IP for vandalism before blocking, s/he hasn't violated the blocking policy. The word "should" does not mean "must". Will ^(talk) 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. The fact that you were not warned prior to each of your violations does not negate the fact that you have violated the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy official guidelines. Your responsibility as part of building an encyclopedia is to look at articles that you just don't like and to see ways in which the issues you see can be addressed without deletion. Running a laundry list of articles up for deletion and failing to make any effort to determine notability or seek improvement in the articles is disruptive and a clear violation of policy. Alansohn 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The point I'm making is that the alternatives are not compulsory before I list for AFD. Also, it's not just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I literally plugged in the phrase "studio album - Wikipedia" into Google and AFD'd any inadequately sourced albums. Look at the article for In Rainbows, Radiohead's new album. Up until about 12:10am today, that was an untitled album page. The difference is that that has multiple sources, and this page doesn't. Unless independent notability can be sufficiently established or the album is verified to be due for release within a month (e.g. Britney Spears's fifth studio album), we shouldn't have "untitled album" pages. Will ^(talk) 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't matter what the article looked like. When you are nominating something for deletion, you are saying that you have done research and the topic has no available references on the Internet. If the article needed references or needed cleanup, it would have taken less time to do the research or clean up the article. Or you could have added a tag to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Usually "X's nth studio album" articles are in violation of WP:Crystal because the articles tend to be speculative, lacking in content and, most importantly, lacking in independent references. In this case however, an album has been confirmed by the studio, references exist about it and it is certainly in production. Therefore it is a notable album by a notable artist - it simply doesn't have a name yet. (The article must, of course, be renamed when a title is announced). A1octopus 11:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cher's twenty-sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cher's twenty-sixth studio album

WP:CRYSTALL; sources only a fansite Will ^(talk) 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--JForget 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson's 10th studio album[edit]

Article is unreferenced and full of mostly rumours, which does not comply with WP:CRYSTAL –Dream out loud (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A helpful rule of thumb: If a future release doesn't even have a name yet, odds are it's not notable. --UsaSatsui 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, not enough confirmed details about the upcoming album.--JForget 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the all of the above. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Will ^(talk) 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Adams' eleventh studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bryan Adams' eleventh studio album

crystalgazing article; sources only two fansites Will ^(talk) 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Much of this is speculation. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Adams has spoken about his new album on numerous occaisions, not least in the sources cited in the article. This is NOT speculation, this information is from the horse's mouth. No reason for deletion at all. Daskill 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Bodom's 6th Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Children of Bodom's 6th Studio Album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This album is confirmed and some songs' titles have had titles revealed - indeed, Tie My Rope is already out. Dan 15:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until article is properly sourced. LuciferMorgan 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF?!?!?! "Not properly sourced"? Scythes-of-Bodom.com is a real website; I'm not just pulling it out of the air. There's even a link to it on the page. Song titles are already out, new info is added all the time. The album itself is going to be released, so we'd just have to create it again anyway. This is by far one of the most absurd recommended pages for deletion. If you want to discuss this with me, then leave a message on my userpage.

Dark Executioner 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

No, it isn't properly sourced. Speaking as a person who has written 3 FAs, I know this. All it has is an external link for the last sentence. If you wish to get a better understanding of what I mean by "proper sourcing", then get in touch. LuciferMorgan 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This album will come out, and we need the page about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.17.94 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed 4th Studio Album[edit]

barely sourced crystalgazing article. Will ^(talk) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Create new article for this album when it at least has a name or some song titles. Dan 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the artical, the page is sourced from the Disturbed Official Myspace. Thank you. Nardulli22 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norther's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Norther's fifth studio album

crystalgazing article which only sources one generic fan/news site Will ^(talk) 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marillion's fifteenth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marillion's fifteenth studio album

unsourced crystalgazing article Will ^(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOT#CRYSTAL Jbeach56 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stapp's 2nd Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

unsourced crystalgazing articler Will ^(talk) 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed Tiptopper 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing Thing Arena[edit]

Should be deleted per WP:WEB. -- G.S.K.Lee 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very much a WP:WEB vio. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A comment isn't really necessary. See WP:WEB and then just look at the article. That simple! - Rjd0060 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment, Speedy Keep~~ ~~The article needs the AFD tag added. Viperix 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Still no AFD tag, Is there a policy on what to do if the nominator does not follow AFD policy? I mean I don't really care if this article gets deleted, but the contribs deserve to know. especially now since its been two days and no tag.... Viperix 09:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Article should be kept and if the nominator wants to delete it then go through the AFD process correctly and re-nom.~~ Viperix 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTED with AFD tag in place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I doubt it will have effect considering the sheer amount of discussion that happened last time. But it is important to do things correctly. Viperix 08:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 15:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users' comments above. Rray 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB as above Percy Snoodle 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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