Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

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 lies. DS (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) I can find no reference to "fannibyte" or the "fanni" prefix anywhere in the SI documentation. Creation and edit history indicate that this is a hoax, if not actual vandalism. Bagheera (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exinda Networks[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely Press Releases or trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry, gotta disagree with you. I stumbled across this AFD (never heard of the company before) and read just a couple of the references, and the articles are absolutely about them, what they are doing, and how what they are doing isn't trivial. The articles are not mentioning them incidently, they are featured subjects. One of the articles claims that they are "Exinda Networks, the only provider of Unified Performance Management (UPM) solutions worldwide..." etc. Passes wp:notability, can be wp:v with wp:rs. They aren't Cisco, but they seem to pass the threshold nicely. The article needs cleaning up and despamming a bit, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Pharmboy (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The forbs reference "Business Wire - Press Release" [1]. or the "separate release", [2] or every eweek.com paid promotion are by Paula Musich [3] (note Email Address) who writes for Ziff Davis Publishing Enterprise, Inc., a "Innovative Media and Integrated Marketing Programs "...In which "Ziff Davis Enterprise creates innovative media that targets technology markets with online, events, custom content, eNewsletters, print, Virtual Tradeshows and eSeminars. Through integrated marketing programs, we leverage our qualified 4 million IT database to help you reach new customers and extend relationships with existing clients."--Hu12 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment by Hu12 is misleading. Ziff Davis is a magazine publisher that owns publications such as [eWeek] and PC Magazine. Like many online or offline publications, eWeek generates revenue through advertising. The quote above is taken from Ziff Davis' page about its marketing programs. I don't see what this has to do with eWeek's articles about Exinda. The fact that a publication generates revenue through advertising does not disqualify it as an a secondary, independent source. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that eWeek's articles on Exinda were paid advertisements by the company. Vpdjuric (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learn more about our products, services and customized marketing programs..."[4] →"To have a Ziff Davis Enterprise Sales Director contact you to discuss integrated marketing opportunities..."[5] . Doesn't sound like they are selling magazine subscriptions..--Hu12 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Ziff Davis/eWeek offer "integrated marketing opportunities" is not evidence that the eWeek Exinda articles were were paid advertisements. Assuming so is presumptuous. Even if you are correct (and I'm not sure how that could be ascertained), Exinda has been covered in-depth by multiple, reliable, secondary independent sources, which makes this argument moot. While I appreciate the vigor with which you fight spam, you use specious reasoning and selective evidence to corroborate your claims, while completely failing to consider evidence that contradicts them. Vpdjuric (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Byte & Switch acknowledges it is a company press release.
  • Article 2 in Network World is an interview with the CEO. It does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines for the statement for which it is used.
  • Article 1 in eWeek starts "The company claims its Service Delivery Point SAAS will simplify and reduce the cost of installing, configuring, monitoring and reporting on the performance of its WAN optimization appliances." and then goes into what it will do at some point, with long quotes from the company's CEO.
  • Article 2 in eWeek starts "Exinda marries WAN optimization with traffic control on enterprise networks.Australian WAN optimization provider Exinda Networks on Nov. 20 hopes to gain a foothold in the North American market with a unique ability in its appliances to classify recreational traffic such as Skype and BitTorrent on enterprise networks." Just over half the article is a single quote from the CEO. The article only gave competitors one line to reply, and had a clearly dismissive tone in that section.
  • Forbes acknowledges it is a company press release.
That leaves Article 1 in Network World, which is a weak basis at best. Basically we're looking at a business which has done its marketing very well, but has little substance on the ground, and the offerings it's saying it may offer or undertake - where's the evidence of them? Why are all these articles two years old? If this is such a major new standard, why can't I find a single entry in an Australian newspaper on Factiva about it that has Exinda as a primary subject (given they are an Australian company and Factiva covers most newspapers back to the late 1990s)? I find some waffly thing in the Age's Business section which talks about venture capital in Australia vs the US and quotes him amongst many others, but not much else. I'm not seeing any contradictory evidence. Orderinchaos 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct - this is a press release.
  • Can you clarify why this does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines?
  • Do these quotes disqualify the article as a source to cite?
  • Is the fact that the article has long quotes from the CEO and, according to you, uses a dismissive tone about the competition grounds for dismissing it as a source that can be used to establish Exinda's notability?
  • Yes, this is a press release.
  • The (non-press release) articles that you refer to are not "all two years old." Three out of the four were written in 2007, and the other in 2006. Also, the fact that you can't find entries on Factiva about Exinda demonstrates nothing about Exinda's notability or lack thereof. Selectively choosing corroborating evidence to fit your thesis of Exinda's lack of notability is naive empiricism. To clarify this point: while finding multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources covering Exinda in Factiva would establish Exinda's notability, not finding such sources in Factiva does not establish Exinda's lack of notability. And if the one source that you deem acceptable is only "a week basis at best," perhaps you should also consider these more recent articles, which I found through a couple of web searches:
  • Byte and Swtich, InfoWorld, and Network World are three reliable, secondary, and independent sources that have covered Exinda in-depth. As Pharmboy wrote, "having multiple articles written is the defacto definition of notability, per the policy."Vpdjuric (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techworld, first sentence: "Australian WAN acceleration developer Exinda Networks has claimed an industry first with the launch of an acceleration box priced at under €2,000 (£1,350)." i.e. Another press release. Orderinchaos 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Having multiple 'articles' written about your companies products does not for notability make. The references included are essentially product marketing, and do not demonstrate actual notability of the company other then getting some technology journalists to truck out a few words on their wares. It's an unlisted company, it's not been involved in or joined to any significant events, and there's nothing offered so far which i've seen which sells the notability argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT. The article in all the forms offered thusfar is WP:VSCA and should be deleted as such. Thewinchester (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe first line in WP:Notability says: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. which seems to fly in the face of your statement. Having multiple articles written is the defacto definition of notability, per the policy. Pharmboy (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writing multiple press releases does, unfortunately, not make one's company notable for Wikipedia. Neither does digging up more and more press releases each time someone points this fact out. Rebecca (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom and Orderinchaos's well presented break-down of the sources provided--Hu12 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Chilli Album[edit]

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

Another vague, original research/rumour-filled (some of it going back to 2005!) article about a supposed upcoming album. References cited are message board-sourced and no longer work anyway. Once again, we also have a huge unreferenced list of 'confirmed tracks' and supposed producers too (anyone else notice how Timbaland always seems to be listed on these things?). Delete (without prejudice for recreation if anything official is announced) per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep for now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital phase converter[edit]

Digital phase converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product, proprietary to Phase Technologies, LLC, who is the only manufacturer of digital phase converters according to the author. I tried finding a reference but the author wrote that the only decent one I found was a sham site. See the talk page. Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Nominated seven hours after article creation? Give editors time to actually read the tags you add before tossing this to AfD. Torc2 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The {{Notability}} tag has been removed twice by the article's author. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then hit the user with a vandalism tag. I just don't see that as cause to AfD the article so quickly. This should be brought to the attention of the science gurus so they can say whether it's marketing BS or not - I don't know if it is; vote is strictly procedural. Torc2 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'm still voting keep on this for mainly procedural purposes, but I would like to see it renominated in a few weeks if no third party sources are found. Torc2 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author Soothsayer2. The information provided is factual and all proprietary references and company references have been removed. Forgive me for the tag removal as I am new at this. Rather than put additional information and references here, would it be better for me to use the discussion page? Technology is quite new and there are discussions and further explanations available. Thanks. Soothsayer2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soothsayer2 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some good independent sources, these would be useful here. But most work should go into the article. You have 5 days before an admin might close the discussion and he ought to review the state of article at that time. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Colonel. Here is the exact copy from the US Patent site

United States Patent 6,297,971 Meiners October 2, 2001 Phase converter Abstract A phase converter that converts single phase AC electric power to balanced three phase AC power. Two input terminal connected to the output of a single phase AC power source connect directly to two output terminals of the converter. The phase converter has two serially connected storage capacitors with a common connection, a charging circuit for controlled charging the storage capacitors and an output circuit for controlled discharge of the storage capacitors to provide single phase AC power to a third output terminal. The charging circuit controls input to the storage capacitor to provide a sinusoidal input current and to step up the voltage to the storage capacitors. The output circuit provides output power to the third output terminal of a predetermined phase and amplitude, relative to the other two output terminals, to result in balanced three phase AC power at the three output terminals. The phase converter provides balanced three phase output for leading power factor, lagging power factor, and resistive loads. Inventors: Meiners; Larry G. (Rapid City, SD) Assignee: Phase Technologies, LLC (Rapid City, SD)

Appl. No.: 09/638,230 Filed: August 14, 2000 Additionally, Dr. Meiners whitepage document has all significant information http://www.phaseperfect.com/files/phasewhitepaper.pdf Soothsayer2Soothsayer2 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but you have to understand that none of that establishes the notability of the technology, and the whitepaper appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal. The links to forums you provided also are not sufficient to establish notability. The guideline for what's required to meet notability is at WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*I would think the patent process lends itself toward a independent, reliable source.

"In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good."(Wikipedia) Soothsayer2 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reliable sources are not the same as notability. Why would the average person care about this? What impact has this had on the world? Just existing isn't a sufficient cause for an item to have a Wikipedia article.Torc2 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need for 3-phase power conversion is evident in the development of rudimentary technology in this field 100 years ago, again 60 years ago and now modern improvements in recent years. 3-phase power is required across such diverse applications as Agriculture, Air Conditioning and Heating, Broadcast, Elevators, Environmental, Laundry, Medical, Metalworking, Pumping and Irrigation, Woodworking, etc… 3-phase utility power simply is not available in many locations it is needed and past solutions have been problematic. When your ability to make a living is dependent on the ability to operate equipment that has become more and more sophisticated and requires 3-phase power that is not available to you or perhaps the ability to live in an area that needs to pump water but cannot without a reliable converter to efficiently operate a submersible pump or even remote area broadcasting, medical applications, etc...then I guess you may care and be impacted. This particular development is significant for the changing and increasing power needs of the modern world. Thanks. Soothsayer2 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the conventional device used to convert single-phase power to three-phase power is a rotary phase converter, which, of course, has moving parts, and is susceptible to mechanical failure. The digital phase converter appears to be the first fully solid-state device to generate balanced three-phase AC service from single-phase service. John254 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the difference between a digital phase converter and a rotary phase converter is analogous to the difference between a solid state inverter and a rotary converter: in both cases, the solid state devices are light-years ahead of their electromechanical counterparts. John254 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but where are the third-party reliable sources that say that? That's really what anybody is aksing for. What trade paper or engineering journal independent of the people who created the device have written something saying "hey, look at this!"? Torc2 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the third-party reliable sources to support the notability of the rotary phase converter? There aren't any -- the few sources in the article are more along the lines of personal webpages than articles in technical journals. However, as anyone with experience in the electrical industry knows that the device is notable, the sourcing issues can be remedied at a later time -- see Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The same rationale applies to the retention of the digital phase converter article. Furthermore, we aren't dealing with completely unverifiable information here -- the patent for the device confirms its existence. John254 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A patent doesn't establish notability, and the presence of a different unsourced article does not justify keeping this one. The essay you pointed to really contradicts what you're saying: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Torc2 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:There is no deadline is written with respect to the creation of articles, but the principle applies to deletion as well. There's no reason to delete this article because, while the device has been shown to exist, and is believed to be notable, we don't have sources to establish its notability right now. John254 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believed to be notable by whom? The nominator doesn't believe that, and right now, I don't either. The notability guideline clearly requires more than faith in notability for an article to be kept, and an essay doesn't override that (especially when it says the same thing). There is plenty of reason to delete this article because, simply put, it doesn't appear meet the requirements for keeping it. The requirements are pretty concrete and simple: find independent, reliable published sources that say it's notable. There's really not much leeway here. (Trust me, I've tried.) Torc2 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because we run the terrible risk of having an article that... might not be important enough for inclusion? Even though several established users who have participated in this discussion, including myself, believe that the device is notable, must we delete the article anyway to avoid the horrible risk of having an article on something that isn't really important? Consider the possible outcomes here: if the users supporting the retention of this article are wrong, then we have wasted perhaps an infinitesimal portion of our bandwidth on an unimportant article -- few people would read such unimportant material anyway. Deletion of articles doesn't save server space, as the deleted revisions are merely hidden from public view, but retained on the servers indefinitely. Now, if the users supporting the deletion of this article are wrong, then, at best, the deletion will need to be overturned at deletion review, once acceptable source material is found. At worst, since there would be no publicly-viewable article, there will be less incentive to ever find acceptable sources to establish notability, and the article would remain deleted indefinitely. I, for one, would prefer to take the chance that we have might have an article on something that isn't very important, unpleasant though that prospect may be. John254 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your beef over this requirement is not with me. If you'd look above, you'll notice I'm still voting keep on this until you (or whoever cares enough to keep this) is given a fair chance to find those sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the commentary cited relates to the exceptional sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons, which this article isn't. Furthermore, the material contained in the article is sourced -- see the patent, whose great technical detail verifies every word in the article. We are concerned with sourcing here, yes, but not to establish that the material contained in the article is true -- merely to establish that this device is sufficiently notable, or important, to merit inclusion. Since several established editors believe that the device is notable, I would suggest retention of the article. John254 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I am not, as seems to be implied in one of the above essay citations, arguing that "Wikipedia should be about everything" -- most people, for instance, clearly have no pretensions to notability, and would have articles concerning them speedily deleted pursuant to CSD A7 -- but only because there is a consensus for this practice. Absent compelling policy considerations, we delete articles only when there is a consensus to do so, either because of the class to which the articles belong, or via individualized consideration at AFD. A mere alleged lack of notability is never the sort of "compelling policy consideration" that would justify the deletion of an article absent a clear consensus for this outcome. John254 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime finance[edit]

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

This article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article. Non-notable, possibly WP:FRINGE, possibly no reliable sources (both sources seem to be from one author) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Luckely consensus and democracy did not made earth flat, science solved it and in long run time went with science (not trying sarcasm), feel free to delete and let time be judge. comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging by the attitude of the article's creator demonstrated below, a SPA whose contributions have been limited to this article and AfD discussion, I'm going to ask that if the consensus is for deletion that the closing administrator consider SALTing the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability, very new idea. Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should this page be deleted? Is there anything mathematical incorrect with the theory? If so please point it out. The author claims it is not practical relevant, but it is still a theory that is consistent and bullet proof. The theory is published in a book by John Wiley & Sons Publishing 2007 as well as in a mathematical finance magazine 2004, both sources can be checked by a simple google search. The theory is not very new and have also been presented at several leading universities, so far nobody have attacked the theory or proven it wrong. according to wikipedia:

    "John Wiley & Sons, Inc., often referred to as Wiley, is a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts, and medical books and journals." I guess wikipedia just is joking?

    Presented at Courant Mathematical Institute New York: http://math.nyu.edu/fellows_fin_math/gatheral/case_studies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book with this idea is one of John Wiley & Sons best sellers in its scientific category: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-300229.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT#TEXT Torc2 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"his article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article." I assume this is why the author is invited to give talks about this subject and to write a book about it by a a publisher that according to wikipedia "a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts" seems inconsistent to me, but I guess that is what happens when everyone can edit wikipedia.unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a catch phrase used as an article title and a book chapter. If other people start using it as an established concept, then it will become notable. Not everything used as a chapter heading in every book Wiley published is a notable concept. DGG (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad to see what happened to Wiley. Mathematics is not limited by fundamental laws of physics, btw. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Regarding the "flat earth" comparison above: that's right, Wikipedia is not science. Wikipedia waits for science to do its job, then waits for writers/reporters/experts to write about it, then summarizes it. This concept hasn't made it through the "science" phase yet, much less the reporting phase.) Bm gub (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary, then DELETE. --VS talk 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steamroller (pipe)[edit]

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

Another pipe for smoking which is not all that notable and lacks anything other than original research. Suggest removal on grounds of both (lack of) notability and verifiability. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is not original research and looks notable to me, though nowhere near as chillum23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
    • At your own leisure, please identify the reliable publications about this subject and explain how the article is not original research. Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes the article is unsourced, but a search for "Steamroller Pipe" brings up 78k Ghits, and the entire first page is about the pipe. There's no question this is a legitimate article. Torc2 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire first page is a mirror of this version of the Wikipedia article, as it says outright. Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading what the search engine turns up. There is very much a question of the legitimacy of this article. It has been asserted that this subject is undocumented and thus the article is original research and unverifiable. You haven't cited a single source that documents this subject, yet. Search results are not sources. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get that result. I see the Wiki article as the second entry, but the rest are all different sites - usually stores (no surprise) - that at least demonstrate that the term is in common use. At the very least, I don't see 78,000 copies of this same article. "Counting Google hits is not research" - I don't know what essay that's from, but it's a faulty argument. The search wasn't intended to verify the content of the article, just verify the object exists and the term is in wide usage, which is all that's required to stop the AfD. Torc2 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a quite correct argument. You are not doing research, in any way, shape or form. You are merely counting Google hits. That is not research. It is the flawed and long-since discredited Google test, that doesn't prove a thing.

          Moreover: That you saw this article as the second result does not change what comes up as the first result. Despite my saying that research involves actually reading what the search engine turns up, you apparently have still not actually read the first page that your search turns up, to see that it is indeed an out-of-date Wikipedia mirror, as it openly states.

          Verification that something exists that is not what is required at AFD. What are required to make a valid keep argument at AFD, rebutting arguments that an article is unverifiable and original research, are sources, per deletion policy. That the object exists is irrelevant, and is not a valid argument. The plot of grassland to the west of my house exists. Despite the fact that I mentioned our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, the only counter to which is to show that sources exist, you have still to make a valid argument that holds water, have still to cite even a single source, and have still to make any case at all for keeping the article. You are propounding several of the classic fallacies, instead. Please learn to not repeat these long-since-debunked and fallacious arguments at AFD. Once again: Counting Google hits is not research, and search results are not sources. Please familiarize yourself with our deletion and content policies.

          Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • From the essay you linked: "Search engines can: Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is". Sounds like it's doing all I said it was doing. For that matter, nothing on the page you linked said the results were totally useless, just that they can't be relied on alone to prove anything. Incidentally, a google search for "The plot of grassland to the west of Uncle G's house" only returns one hit, and that's back to here, so that's really not an accurate comparison. Do you have any external sources to prove it exists? Torc2 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Sourced. Torc2 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge // Liftarn (talk)
  • Keep. It's got sources, enough at least to prove existence and notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources cited in the article fall into one of two categories: (1) they do not meet our standards for reliable sources and/or (2) they are not sources at all, just mere dictionary definitions. For example, one of the Google book searches links to "The Complete Drug Slang Dictionary" by Emmanuel Frost, and all it says about the subject is "pipe used to smoke marijuana". The marijuana.com citation should be removed post haste as well, it is just a Google scraper. The erowid page is a user-submitted essay about their own personal drug experience and happens to mention the pipe in passing. How exactly is this useful information? RFerreira (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are reliable, they're just not scholarly. Who would you trust on an article describing a cannabis pipe, a Harvard sociology profession, or somebody who was probably baked as they wrote it? The sources, including the one deleted (which I disagree with), show beyond the threshold of verifiability that the pipe exists and is in common usage. Torc2 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting discussion. Transwiki to wikionary. The sources seem reliable, but essentially provide a dict-def, which is all this article is (plus a one-sentence "how-to"). That the thing is defined does not make it (a) notable, (b) encyclopedic. Kudos on the sourcing however - they are good sources for the definition, on a topic that I would imagine is hard to find reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Smoking pipe (non-tobacco) and Transwiki to Wiktionary. Let's look at the references provided in the article now (version). The first reference (to marijuana.com) is a web site search; the results of this search seem to be hits against forum entries, which are not (in this case) reliable sources. The second and third references are another matter; these are to published books (not self-published, I believe) and they are sufficient to satisfy verifiability of the meaning of the term, but not sufficient to support the full content of the article or the notability of the topic. The last reference (erowid) is really interesting, is likely factual and accurate, but does not meet the standard of Wikipedia reliable sources, I'm sorry to say. Thus, we have a term that we know is used in the subculture, which we know the rough meaning of, and which use is supported by reliable sources. This spells two fates - a wiktionary entry and a list entry. My recommendation regarding process: I would tag the article with {{Copy to Wiktionary}}, merge the verifiable content to the target noted at the beginning of this comment, and once the copy-to-Wikt is done, convert the article to a redirect tagged with {{R from merge}}. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Love Entertainment[edit]

Velvet Love Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable tag team as of yet. Nikki311 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Negative): There are absolutely no reliable sources for attribution of their meeting the WP:BIO notability criteria ... by definition, links to their MySpace pages and biographies on their employer's website do not qualify as WP:RS. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also very unsure about this, but I will point out that -- while biographies from the TNA website are not reliable sources in a strict sense -- they do confer a level of notability. The company is involved in cable television production, so those listed as performers on the website are known to be on cable television. (This isn't much, but it is far superior to the level of coverage these ladies had during a spate of previous article attempts.) Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I'll grant that it's better coverage, however, I still consider an employer's website (regardless of how much of a reliable source it may be) to be a primary source, and WP:BIO#Basic criteria explicitly requires "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think the editor may have been saying that being a performer for TNA Wrestling gives some level of inherent notability due to their presence on television and Pay-Per-View, and that their profiles are proof of their employment (and therefore their notability). I see Xoloz's point completely, and if Velvet Love Entertainment had their own team profile on said website then I might be more interested in keeping the article. But they don't, and I'm not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I won't deny that an employer's website is OK for verification of some facts (e.g. date/place of birth, actual employment there, etc.), but they do not satisfy "has been the subject of published secondary source material" ... I view "known to be on cable television" (in itself) as noteriety, not notability, which (in the case of television "celebrities") is a given ... that's all I'm saying. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to concerns about notability (is there anything in this article that could not be used in the individual subject's pages? Oh yes - one of them doesn't even have a page!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom iMatthew (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a tag team - not notable. Individual articles would be better. GetDumb 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per CSD A1 (just an infobox) & G1, with a smattering of G3.SkierRMH (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danger (1977 film)[edit]

Danger (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another hoax from the creator of Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1955 film). No such movie, as even the briefest of perusals of the participants' imdb pages will attest Corvus cornixtalk 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete by User:John Reaves made up (non-admin closure). —Travistalk 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1955 film)[edit]

Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1955 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax? IMDB doesn't know anything about this film, and I can't find any meaningful hits when I google "'Killer Klowns from Outer Space' 1955". Corvus cornixtalk 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced and as per above. Nakon 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum (pipe)[edit]

This isn't a notable or verifiable type of cannabis pipe and thus I ask that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Though an WP:OSE reasoning, we have an article on other pipes, such as Steamroller (pipe). The page in question has been around for almost three years. There is a reference to what it is, and that much is verifiable (as opposed to a "someone claimed this exists" article). The article's content is sufficient so as to demonstrate notability. Is it a very notable subject? No. Is it notable "enough"? Yes. Therefore, at bare minimum combine into a Cannabis pipes article, but I believe that WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability are minimally met and could be met through additional referencing. Therefore, should be a Keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Chillum. Clearly verifiable, the content would have to be merged into Smoking pipe as it is essential that this notable subject is covered. Merely because its use is relatively rare outside India does not indicate lack of notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Nor do the 6 refs the article now contains. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What material in this article did you find verifiable? That is the primary basis for deletion here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well lets start with the first sentence. Why would this article not be verifiable. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument is at fault, but I will entertain it anyhow. If only the first sentence is verifiable then it is apparent that an article cannot be sustained and should in fact be deleted. Thank you for making my point. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No its not. Don't just glibly tell me my argument is at fault merely because you disagree, I didn't get beyond the first sentence in answering your question so don't assume I am saying only the first sentence is verifiable as that would be putting words into my mouth. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, again. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is the obligation of one seeking to add or keep content to provide sources and references. However, that argument is somewhat beside the point, since it isn't whether the article is good as it is, but whether or not it should be kept & improved that would most directly bear on this deletion discussion. --SSBohio 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously verified by the first source. Article has not been previously tagged and AfD is not cleanup. Nom's attitude is also not appreciated.Torc2 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no incivility in the above. And no, what is actually obvious from the first source is that it only supports 1 sentence of content, as already pointed out. Where has this subject been documented in depth by multiple published works from reliable and independent sources, to the extent that a full article can be made? Please cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You see no incivility? "Thank you for making my point." "Don't just glibly tell me my argument is at fault merely because you disagree." "Thank you, again." You don't see Coccyx Bloccyx's last comment as being exceptionally condescending? And regardless of whether the source only supports the first sentence, it makes clear that the existence of the pipe meets WP:V and probably WP:N. Yes, more sources are needed; no, there is not enough cause to delete. Torc2 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be noted that prior to this discussion he redirected the article (then at Chillum) to Chillum, Maryland three times without discussion. He removed my comment about it from his talk page and told me that if I did not source it (I have no history of editing this article, I just noticed that he had redirected it) he would post it at AfD (which I had directed him to do in my deleted comment). He has since moved it to Chillum (pipe) without any attempt at gathering consensus, a move I believe to be without basis. I'm not going to contest that, though, because the information is still available, and I really don't want to get into an argument with an editor with such behavior. Atropos (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & improve - This article's topic meets the basic standards of notability and verifiability, even if lacking in other areas. It clearly needs more citations, but the topic itself appears to meet the standard for inclusion. Stubbify at the extreme, but the subject should be covered here. If no sources arise, then the article can always be merged into smoking pipe. Our goal needs to be to make bad articles better, maybe even the gold standard, not merely to delete whatever doesn't measure up at this moment. --SSBohio 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this topic is clearly notable. Atropos (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Improvement may be needed per SSBohio, but what articles cannot be improved? —Whig (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known in South Asia. utcursch | talk 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --VS talk 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Gravel[edit]

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

As far as I can see, there is no notability for Mrs. Gravel presented in the article. Just being the wife of a candidate does not make her notable. Metros (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're saying that Elizabeth Kucinich is more notable than Mike Gravel's wife, whom both of the wives spouse's both come in at 0-1%? I'm sure that there will be more notable information added as Gravel's campaign continues. CoolKid1993 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many votes their husbands get have nothing to do with the notability of these women. Metros (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not exactly. If someone becomes a major party nominee, their spouse always gets an article, e.g. Eleanor McGovern, Kitty Dukakis. So notability is sort of a combined function both of the person's own accomplisments and the political spouse's. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but Gravel isn’t going to be the Democratic nominee in any conceivable situation. —Travistalk 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because as the candidate gets more coverage, so too does their spouse through the human interest that crops up. But just being the spouse doesn't equal the notability, the coverage is what does. Metros (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it's not like Barbara Richardson, Bill Richardson's wife, is any more famous than Whitney is. All of her fame comes back to being known as Bill Richardson's wife as well, and the same goes for all of the presidential candidate's wives, some are just more known in the media, i.e. Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, but it should be beneficial to have a stub-class article for each of the presidential candidate's wives despite there husband or wive's viabilty to become there party's nomination. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the article as it stands has one minor media mention of Mrs. Gravel, so does not meet the criteria of multiple sources required by WP:BIO. I don't believe that being the wife of a presidential candidate by itself confers notability. For better or worse Mrs. Kucinich has received major media coverage which Mrs. gravel appears not to have done. If proper sources showing media coverage of Mrs. Gravel can be found (particularly for any references to her that are not focused solely on her role as Senator Gravel's wife) I'd be prepared to change my view on this. Gwernol 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Delete. Mike Gravel is not a serious candidate, so the analogy to the other wives is faulty. Nothing in the article shows any real independent notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, While I think some of the candidate's wives have gained some notability as a result of their husband's presidential campaigns, Whitney Gravel is an exception to this, due in part to the lack of media coverage about her, or her husband's campaign. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While some may argue that Whitney isn't notable because her husband has, "no chance" of winning the Democratic nomination, it's the duty of the encyclopedia to be consistent in application. If all other candidate wives get pages, then so too should Whitney. '''Shawn''' (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing that the article should be deleted because of Mike Gravel's chances of winning the nomination. The argument is she doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines because she has not been the subject of multiple independent published articles. It is not the duty of the encyclopedia to apply the particular consistency formula you are proposing, we stick to established policies and guidelines (see notability and verifiability. Gwernol 11:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by User:AliveFreeHappy CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement (non-admin closure). —Travistalk 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Information Management System[edit]

Security Information Management System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a terrible article. It does not explain what the subject of the article actually is. Its main text is the exact same ~40 words as when it was created nearly three years ago and when it was tagged for context nearly two and a half years ago. It reads like (very bad) advertising copy. If anybody was going to improve it, or chooses to improve it now to save it from deletion (as apparently there are vast multitudes of people who consider it a vitally important article, judging by the speed with which they removed my speedy and prod today), they have no excuse for not doing it before now. Propaniac (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oof, that is kind of harsh, don't you think? Try not to insult the authors while listing their pages for deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect, merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer H4[edit]

Hummer H4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unrefferenced article about an automobile that may or may not exist in the future. Purely editor speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basheer Alrashidi[edit]

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

Speedy rejected because of claim of notability. It's an advert for a self-help guru so the article calls him "notable", of course, but there are no references to support this claim. Very few ghits, mostly from a few TV interviews. Just another pundit. Fails WP:NN, WP:VERIFY andy (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Have paid careful attention to this complex debate and all present and past comments. I note that it has been said some of the content may be salvageable to other articles and the thought of that task has been described as being a nightmare - however I assume the keep proponents will assist in that task. I will be happy to assist in cut and paste to a sandbox if that has not already been undertaken.--VS talk 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of western Eurasia[edit]

History of western Eurasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous AfD debate was closed as "no consensus" with the admonition: A conversation about merging and renaming can happen on the article talk page. Certainly the article seems redundant with other history articles, but that's easily dealt with. It has not been "dealt with", and the editor who is dominating this space to the point of WP:OWN has only more completely dominated this article in the past few months. The article is so perversely authored, nobody wishes to even attempt improving it. John Russ Finley (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Fundamentally a POV fork of History of Europe, History of the Mediterranean region, and History of the Middle East to highlight the theories of anti-establishment (though admittedly now recognized) historian McEvedy. But setting aside the POV issues and the apparent ownership concerns (not themselves cause for deletion in most cases), the death knell here is the fundamental concept. What is this article the history of? Western Eurasia (or, before the pagemove, West Eurasia)? Those are redlinked as I write this, for a reason -- the absence of multiple, nontrivial, reliable sources that use such terms to describe Europe proper plus the remainder of the Mediterranean region and bits of the Middle East. Indeed, the article itself struggles to confine the region at hand (is Persia part of this "western Eurasia", for example). Wikipedia cannot have an article on the History of <foo>, when we cannot define <foo>, or where <foo> itself fails to meet our standards of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. To do otherwise, as this article has done, is to build on a foundation of sand. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it ownership is related to the behavior of an editor towards others who wish to edit not to the percentage edits made. Do you have any reason to believe that any editor has behaved towards other editors in a way that shows ownership? Second, please explain to me why you think McEvedy's atlases display an anti-establishment POV. Have you read them?Dejvid (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of ownership in this case would stem not from a hostile treatment of editors who are trying to help (you seem to be kind and courteous to a fault, Dejvid), but rather the creation of a stream-of-fact prose that is so off-putting to other editors, they would not even wish to wade into this owner's article. Example: At least the Byzantines no longer had to worry about the Avars who had lost control over their Slav vassals but as these Slav tribes had overrun all the Balkans (including most of Greece) this did not help the Byzantines much and their only really sizable territory was Anatolia. I could not author a more incoherent set of nouns, verbs, and possessive pronouns if I tried. People are running screaming from this article, and some are even making fun of it on sites critical of Wikipedia. We can do better than this, but let's do it in History of <foo> locations that are more widely accepted (such as Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East) and have a more thriving community of authors, rather than this one author's narrative playground. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should reread the page on ownership but thanks for putting it in a way that it is impossible for me to be offended by. I'm not sure how you define thriving. History of the Middle East has had a request for sources for over a year and nothing has been done. The same notice was placed on History of western Eurasia and it now has 45 reffs. It would be better if more that one person had been adding sources but that is still better than zero.Dejvid (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete West Eurasia == Europe ; Western Eurasia == West Europe (Western Europe, Northwest Europe, Southwest Europe). So... this is the History of Europe. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an overview. I find McEvedy's arguments for using this area as the basis for an overview convincing. An overview based on Europe handles things like the Punic Wars and the Persian Wars awkwardly but there is room for several different overviews. The topic, the history of this area, is highly notable and very easy to scorce.Dejvid (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that addressing the Punic Wars or the Persian Empire in the context of a History of Europe is problematic. That is why there is also a History of the Mediterranean region (which, admittedly, could be better) and a History of the Middle East. Claims that there is a justifiable need for a combined article, especially since the base concept (western Eurasia) can't even seem to muster an article at all, is going to need some demonstrated sourcing from more than McEvedy. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The triangle conflict of the Avars, Byzantinium and Sassanid Persia is awkward within History of the Mediterranean region etc. It is the topic which needs to be notable not the term use to describe it. Hence it is irrelevant that western Eurasia is (I agree) not worth an article. The reason why notability is important is that non notable topics are hard to source and has a danger of original research. The topic of this page is by contrast very easy to find sources for.Dejvid (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Refs Note more than two.

((Note: the word "Africa" is never used in this article.))-John Russ Finley (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is the other round. If you google for "western Eurasia" and Africa you get pages that refer to "western and Eurasia and North Africa". The authors do not specifically mention north Africa because they assume that North Africa is included as part of western Eurasia. But there is something more fundamental that the term used. It is advancing the thesis that on there were two regions of advanced civilization that initially had similar histories but then developed in two quite different directions. The eastern was China. Is it really so controversial that the western was not simply Europe but embraced north Africa and western Asia and it is worth having a page covering the history of that region on Wikipedia?Dejvid (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The authors do not specifically mention north Africa because they assume that North Africa is included as part of western Eurasia..." Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but is that your WP:OR, or is that documented in some other source? - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does it make sense to say that the Abbasid Khalifate was an attempt to recreate Rome (as the article argues) and not have Africa in mind given it was the African bits of Rome that it held (and Syria of course)? But what is at issue here is not the tittle of the wiki page but topic that the article covers. That article deals with a specific geographical area which is defined and a number of historians have found that region a useful concept. I didn't cite this for the sake of a definition of the term. It is not the tittle of a wiki page that needs to establish notability but the topic. Dejvid (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The divergent evolution of coinage in eastern and western Eurasia
  • [6] Italy and Euro-Mediteranian] (uses term western Eurasia to mean the area that is the focus of article)
  • Thompson, William R. 1999. “The Military Superiority Thesis and he Ascendancy of Western Eurasia in the World System.” Journal of World History 10:143–178.
  • The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History,(+ Medieval +two later ones) Colin McEvedy Gives reasons why the area as a sutible focus for historical study though he doesn't use the term West Eurasia
  • Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel Explicitly uses the term western Eurasia.

Dejvid (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename - this is a wide-ranging article of a kind that WP does not do well. It seems to be about the Mediterranean World and Middle East and their relationship. I would prefer to see these appearing in the title, as the present title suggests a scope including Russia (which is not mentioned or hardly. I have no problem over notability. However, there are too few sources, and I am not clear whether those cited are the most authoritative (not being an expert on that aspect of history). I would suggest that the final two (empty) sections should be removed, so that the scope would be limited to end with the medieval period, probably with "Renaissance" becoming "late medieval". This would make it Ancient and Medieval History of the Mediterranean and Middle East. This is perhaps a slightly clumsy title, but reflects is scope covering late BC to AD1500. Some sections need linking with "main" templates to more detailed articles, but that is a matter of improving the article, and certainly does not warrant deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McEvedy describes it as the Europe-Near East Area. Would you support a move to History of Europe-Near East up till 1500 or something?Dejvid (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. "In 453 Attila died in bed with his new wife. As a result, the Hun Empire collapsed." Anyone else get unforunate memories of Body of Evidence with these lines? Seriously, the article needs major work. Personally, I have to question whether the "region" even deserves a separate article. However, having said this, I am leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject History about this discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -

I haven't followed any of this debate, nor am I very familiar with wikipedia's various "History of X" articles. So I don't feel like offering a support/delete opinion, but have a few thoughts and questions.

First, it seems most here agree that the term History of western Eurasia is not so great and is probably not worth keeping. As for a better term, I'm not sure one exists, nor is one needed. Rather than searching for a name I want to ask, as User:Serpent's Choice did, What is this article the history of? Reading the article it seems fairly clear. It is a history of the Mediterranean and surrounding regions, from ancient to modern times. Or, one might call it a history of Europe and surrounding regions, as Europe and the Mediterranean are so closely linked. The larger context includes a vast area reaching from the Indus River to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Sahara to the Arctic. Makes sense to me. How can you meaningfully describe Mediterranean/European history without this larger context?

Slight tangent: I understand why articles like "History of X" and "Geography of X" tend to be broken down by continent and country, but I hope people don't therefore think the "History of X" does not involve A, B, and C! I mean, take an overly silly example -- in European history there were a number of crusades during which armies traveled to a place outside of Europe (see History of Asia). Silly, yes, but the point is that the history of Europe, (north Africa), and (parts of) Asia are so deeply entwined as to be inseparable. I think, maybe, that is what this "western Eurasian" article is trying to address.

On the other hand, the History of Europe page already does a somewhat decent job of ignoring that invisible Europe-ends-here line and readily incorporates info about Egypt, Persia, India, Siberia, and so on. It is perhaps a bit lacking in the history of Islam, which deserves more attention if only for its profound effect on European history. The History of western Eurasia page may have a better start on that.

Finally, a thought on McEvedy and his geographic delineation. It seems to me that one of his goals was to create a historical atlas in which every map would cover the exact same area at the same scale. If I understand it, he hoped that this method would help convey a consistency to an otherwise chaotic and confusing history. You can compare any two maps and see at a glance the chances from place to place over time. That makes sense. But it seems worth noting that he was creating historical atlases, not mainly-prose articles. In an article there is less need to be strict about the geographical boundary of study. If suddenly you need to describes events in China it is not going to ruin the article focus.

Sorry for being so wordy, I'm done now! Maybe now I'll get around to writing that Maritime History of the Indian Ocean from Zanazibar to the Moluccas. :-) Pfly (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liu-lig Gong Fang[edit]

Liu-lig Gong Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is lacked here. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - non-notable advertisement of sorts, or so it seems. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - with cab's recent edits, notability has been established and the article is much more neutral and useful. Kudos to cab for being particularly awesome. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep moved to correct name "Liuli Gongfang" (it can also be spaced as "Liu Li Gong Fang" or "Liuligongfang") and rewritten with sources. Notable company; its founders are described as the originators of contemporary Chinese glass art. cab (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets WP:N. Noroton (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I meant to explicitly say Keep because it meets WP:N. Noroton (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of recent edits, this now meets WP:N standards. RFerreira (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Anthony.bradbury as G1. Non-admin close--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smooky[edit]

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

Non-notable neoglism, pure dictionary definition. Sourced (improperly) through Wiktionary. Propose delete under WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Grey[edit]

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

IMDB entry indicates tiny number of non-significant roles, biography is self-penned by subject. Publications appear to be vanity press imprints. Overall, appears not to meet WP:BIO. Reads like self-written promotion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Originating editor is leaving arguments against deletion on the article's talk page, linked above. Have asked him/her to repost them here but just giving a heads up for those who want to see them. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 07:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not assert the subject has had significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. SWik78 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - couldn't find anything reputable during a brief Google search. Subject has insufficient notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject is not notable enough for inclusion, all information is basically sourced from IMDB, which in return seems to be self-penned. No usable Google hits, news article or mentions in books or magazines as far as several searches could tell. Poeloq (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie as Rapunzel[edit]

Barbie as Rapunzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable direct to video film. Nothing to distinguish it from any number of other cheaply made product franchise films. The article isn't much more than a plot outline. WebHamster 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As lame as I'm sure this was, it was also a top-selling video for quite some time, and there's certainly no shortage of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's strange how the article doesn't feature any of that and is more concerned with the plot (I use the term loosely). --WebHamster 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The awards I mean, not the cast. --WebHamster 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variety mentions it winning for Animated Character Performance and Original Score. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that be the Variety link that doesn't appear anywhere in the article? The links that do appear in the article don't come under the banner of "substantive coverage". --WebHamster 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the following:
  • Moira McCormick (2002-10-05). "Barbie Returns In 'Rapunzel'". Billboard. The Barbie as Rapunzel campaign expands on many of the promotional components from Mattel's Barbie in the Nutcracker, which had a 94% sell-through rate and sales of more than 3.5 million units. Print ads started one week before street date, and Ross says they are expected to generate 260 million consumer impressions through the end of the year. TV spots also began airing on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network in August.
  • Scott Hettrick (2002-10-11). "BARBIE'S HAIR-RAZING TALE". Sun-Sentinel. Anjelica Huston delivers an entertainingly menacing voice as evil Gothel and the producers have imbued the much more simplistic but typically dour original Brothers Grimm tale with multiple characters that kids will find engaging.
  • Chris J. Parker (2002-11-01). "'Rapunzel' Barbie trades hairbrush for paintbrush". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The movie is enhanced by its soundtrack, which features music performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. The computer-generated animation is still a bit clumsy, especially in this post-Shrek era. But it's watchable, especially for younger viewers.
  • Neil Buckley (2003-02-08). "Barbie's new roles play to a new audience: Making a movie star was a smart move for Mattel, says Neil Buckley". Financial Times. Her 2002 film, the 76-minute Barbie as Rapunzel, with the voice of actress Anjelica Huston as the evil witch Gothel, was a bigger success... It tied in with merchandise including a Barbie as Rapunzel doll - with the longest hair of any Barbie since her creation - dolls representing the other characters, an "Enchanted Tower" playset and a range of themed products, including denim jackets, watches, backpacks, musical hairbrushes and hair extension gift sets.
  • These establish the notability of this DTV film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is extremely bad but as it is a film, regardless of how bad the film itself is, it should be kept - It just needs improving. Sorry for deleting the delete notice btw - i couldn't find this page and thought it was up for deletion for no reason.Catalyst?! (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Mariposa[edit]

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

Non-notable direct to video film that has not yet been released. Prod removed by article creator without comment. WebHamster 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While we generally discourage not-yet-released stuff, this one is far enough along that it's available for pre-order and supporting items (such as storybooks) are already out. I'll be pretty surprised if this turns out not to be released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what about its notability? It's a generic low budget kids film with nothing to demonstrate notability. --WebHamster 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prior movies in the series were all notable--bestselling, widely-reviewed, etc--so there's not much reason to imagine this one won't be as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not notable now then how is is known that it will be notable later? Articles on films have to be notable now, not guessing that they may be notable later. I may be the world's largest lottery winner and become notable in 6 months so can I have my article now? Now don't forget WP:WAX before you answer. --WebHamster 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two aren't comparable because whether a movie is successful/notable isn't determined by random chance the way a lottery is. It's reasonable to assume that the next film in a (so far) notable series will also be notable. Besides, being part of a notable series is in itself an indicator of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas this is simply not the case as notability isn't inherited. Likewise notability has to be verifiable. If the film does not yet exist then how is that notability reliably verified. Obviously press releases can't be used, so how does a film which has not yet been released meet the criteria for film notability? Or more specifically, how does this one? --WebHamster 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like Starblind's argument. I also consider the subject notable enough for inclusion as a stub (with more to come once it's released), based on the sheer number of websites selling it on preorder [7] [8] [9] [10]. Bottom line is that I don't feel a deletion will benefit Wikipedia in any way. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every film in this series has been on a national best seller chart. It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to believe this one will be also. Just like it is reasonable to assume that the next Harry Potter or Disney movie will be notable. Frog47 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still has to be verifiably notable does it not? So take away the studio's press releases and publicity drives and what are you left with? --WebHamster 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with WebHamster's argument. In this case the "press releases and publicity drives," along with a little common sense and Google searching, can provide for temporary notability. Under his argument (virtually) no future products would have articles, which I think would hurt Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already is listed as a best-selling DVD at Amazon.com, and that is simply on pre-sales 5 weeks prior to the release date. There is virtually no chance of it not charting upon release. Additionally, the star Kelly Sheridan is notable and the role of Barbie in this series is what she is best known for. Frog47 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G3: creation of the article, a duplicate of The realm of no!, was to disrupt the AfD process there. —C.Fred (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die Republikaner auf Nein[edit]

Die Republikaner auf Nein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also included in this AfD for the same reason:

Non-notable module for Dungeons & Dragons. Article admits the module was never mass published and only references are to forum postings. Redfarmer (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, no substance, all speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets of Vengeance[edit]

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

Speculation on an upcoming manga. Falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge/Redirect with district. JERRY talk contribs 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Science Point[edit]

Chesapeake Science Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

sub high school level schools are not considered notable unless there is a specific event or qualifier that gives them a claim to such notability Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it makes the WP:CRYSTAL claim that it will become a high school in the future, but even after that, I don't subscribe to the idea that high schools are inherently notable. Notability not established. Not that this is a valid benchmark, but I live 10 minutes away, and I've not heard of it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district/redirect as becoming the norm. Possible keep if sources are found. TerriersFan (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district/redirect per TerriersFan. Noroton (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator's rationale is without any foundation in policy or consensus practice. Noroton (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:OUTCOMES discusses this. The established precedent in hundreds of cases was that High Schools were generally able to claim notability by default and middle-schools and below are not. Please think next time before you step out and make false statements about consensus and practice.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, G10 by ArnoldReinhold, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Badro[edit]

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

Biography that doesn't provide evidence of notability (only claims it). Possibly a joke article, or just an autobiography of a NN person (see: "His current principal research interest is measuring the softness of armchairs and observing the insides of his eyelids.", "holds the world record for the 1500 metre nap", "[....] but his parents emigrated to France because they could stand boiled andouillette with mint sauce." [11]) — TheBilly(Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molten Group[edit]

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

This article has been speedily deleted at least three times, but the editor has returned under two usernames to repost. Hopefully an AfD can settle this. My reason for nominating is that notability is not proven as per WP:N.

The article seems to stake notability from being shortlisted for the "National Busines Awards", in fact it was shortlisted for a regional heat and, presumably progressed no further. It also states that a director was finalist for Female Entrepreneur of the Year, but the link reveals that the competition required an self-nomination and entry fee. The second nomination was for Young Entrepreneur of the Year, but again this was a self-nomination (although without an entry fee). I don't think either awards confer notability to Wikipedia's standards. Neither the group or individual have actually won any of these awards.

I've tried to find some notability, but Google returns only a few hits limited to their own website, Wikipedia, LinkedIn and a few jobsites. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To: BlinkingBlimey Thank you for taking the time and effort with this article.

Username Just to assure you that the only reason a second username was created was to conform by Wikipedia guidelines that recommended not to use the first user name but to create a new one. So this is the reason for the new posting.

Repostings First speedy deletion warning: Blatant Advertising Initially you wrote to say all it required was a reference list which we added. As a new contributor that did not fully understand the process - the article was reposted.

Second speedy deletion warning: Notability It was recommended to rewrite the article in its entirety. This was done and reposted.

Third speedy deletion warning: was back to 'Blatant Advertising' and then changed to 'Notability'. This is what is being discussed presently.

Awards The above mentioned awards attract much attention with small companies and both finalist and winners are noteworthy.

You mention that some awards were self nomination, it is worth mentioning to be eligible to submit a nomination, strict criteria must be met and becoming a finalist shows the firm/ person to exceed the criteria set out. http://www.fgba.co.uk/entry_criteria.htm

With regard your comment on fees; it is common practice for business award nominations to have administration and process fees levied. The example highlighted above is approx £35.

In the article there are 10 references available. Small companies do not have PR companies managing their profile, so extensive coverage proves more challenging.

Examples of sites on wikipedia that have similar notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto%27s_Pub_%26_Brewery

Oyster007 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles claim to notability is very unimpressing, and the refs given in the article is partly to articles who just slightly mentions them, and partly talks about them as a really small firm. The otherstuffexist-argument is void. I must also admit I tend to want to delete coi-edits, if closing admin thinks my bias is hopeless, just ignore this. Greswik (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A hopeless case. There is little to no basis for establishing notability with this company. There are also massive COI problems with this as well. User appears to be creating multiple accounts to circumvent the policy.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Oni Ookami Alfador Thank you for your interest in this article. Regarding your comment 'User appears to be creating multiple accounts to circumvent the policy'. This is not the case at all. I had to create a new username to comply with Wikipedia policy and recommendations. This article is written in the spirit of Wikipedia. 213.208.100.177 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where it says anywhere in the policy that you should be creating multiple accounts. Actually, you can look if you wish but I'll save you some time; it does not. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Oni Ookami Alfador This is the core of the notice I received to create a new account! Just to reiterate, i have only created two accounts - not multiple. The initial one is no longer in use bescuase of the notice below that was sent to that account. I now use the second account username only. As a new user to Wikipedia, I thought this was the correct action to take.

'You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. Alternately, you may request a change in username if you want to keep the contributions from this account.

In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Oyster007 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was under the impression based on previous communication that you had chosen to create a new name, not that your old one was blocked for a naming violation. In any case, the reasons for deleting this article still stand. You may also want to consider using the standard talk page format here. I will leave a comment on your talk page explaining what I mean.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null Physics[edit]

Null Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. No sufficient source is given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A whole branch of physics will need more than just a mention in a magazine. There needs to be evidence that this is not just a fringe theory and that the scientific community acknowledges it in some way. Otherwise there are about 45,000 other such theories we can include. Sam Barsoom 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE. 0=0+0+0+0 means universe is made of nothingness?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:COI and WP:OR. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt at promotion by the author of the theory and of the book which is the only source. For what it's worth, I'm a cosmologist and I'd never heard of it until now. It's certainly never been the subject of a serious peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Any theory claiming to overturn current thinking on cosmology completely better have lots of squiggly math symbols to show for it! And those squiggles better be peer-reviewed in respected journals. Obvious WP:FRINGE. I'm looking forward to a snow close — TheBilly(Talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. As someone posted at the above link, this is an exercise in ”Remedial Crackpottery 101.” —Travistalk 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, article should be deleted also because of the above reasons.Ohmpandya (Talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR is about the nicest thing I can say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it said that the steady state model is a current model??!!!! The references are from 2000, but I thought it was out of the 50's... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This theory comes from a single person, Terence Witt, who has published a book detailing his theory. According to M. Witt's 2007-11-27 press release, he is starting a job, lecturing about this book, at Florida Institute of Technology in January 2008. At the same time this article, created twice before (once a week before the press release) is re-created by Terrywitt (talk · contribs). This is plainly abuse of Wikipedia to promote a novel hypothesis. There's no evidence that this hypothesis has been fact checked, peer reviewed, acknowledged by anyone else at all, and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Indeed, this book was not even run by an indepedent publisher. A press release by the company printing it proudly announces that M. Witt is self-publishing this book. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is a tertiary source. This article is an unreviewed unacknowledged novel physics model that has zero independent sources and that is being added here by the model's inventor in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because it is complete bollocks (i.e. not even coherent enough to qualify as a fringe theory), but because it is non-notable complete bollocks. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the above, the reference "Zero: Biography of a Dangerous Idea" supports Big Bang cosmology, not this. Eldereft (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the author seems to be having a shot at reinventing Monadology, but it's still blatant OR. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Starblind CSD G3: Pure Vandalism (non-admin close). —Travistalk 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ktothef[edit]

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

Vanity/vandal redirect dating from 2005. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a nonsense/vandal redirect. Pharmboy (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limerence[edit]

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

Neologism, Not Verifiable. Entire article based on one source of questionable reliability. Pianoguy (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's an established term, not a neologism. It's been fairly widely discussed in reputable journals. This is from The Observer [13] and this from Time magazine [14]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's pretty decent, though it could use a few more sources. But hey, (apparently) it was in Time magazine and The Observer, so I think that makes it verifiable and notable. And in any case I feel like deleting it would be a net lose for Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — verifiable non-neologism based on numerous reliable sources ➥the Epopt (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe term is always used in connotation with the psychologist Dorothy Tennov, including both of the sources mentioned in the discussion above. The term is never used outside her books or a discussion of her books. As such, it certainly violates the original research clause, although it may not be a neologism. 4.229.171.89 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepThat's not what NOR means--it means we don't do OR here--it does not mean we can't report on OR done elsewhere and published. Personally, I think it's an elaborate way of saying nothing new at all, but if the sources take it seriously we need the article. DGG (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Established term with several reliable references. Jfire (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep. Despite association with one primary scholar, this is now an established term with definitions and substantive discussion available from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a term well-established by the mid-1980's when I was in college. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a term I had heard about ten years ago from a psychologist and used in normal conversations to describe something very specific. 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.148.245 (talk)
  • Strong Keep - deleting this article, like the above user says, would be a 'net lose for wikipedia'. this article describes a phenom. that most humans can relate to in a very deep and personal way. very informative and illuminating article... although, it of course, needs to be cleaned up.--Username22 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is (1) a great article, (2) has had significant work and contribution to it, (3) is well established, and (4) whoever suggested deletion is either a fool or is acting in malice and should have their authority lowered to avoid threats to other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.141 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-although this article has the flaw you mentioned, I believe that time will fix the problem, however deleting it, the problem and solution will never be addressed -- penubag  10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Valley Public Library[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Just another public library like thousands of others. Rtphokie (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - db-context! Other then "this is a library that is here" no notibility, no content or references. Not requiring it's own page.--Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Due to recent changes forced by the Afd, I change my mind to keep. The article has progressed. I hope that is continues to grow from the people who wish to keep it.--Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete the "article" is basically just an address, and extremely few libraries are notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pennsylvania library system. useful redirect. --W.marsh 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Noroton. --W.marsh 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect per W.marsh. There is no individual notability to this branch of library, and there's no sense in keeping the history accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ORG guidelines for notability, and evidence of it is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added enough sources to meet Wikipedia notability standards in WP:N and WP:ORG. Libraries, like some schools and nearly all hospitals, are important parts of their communities, this one more than most libraries. It's been the subject of substantial coverage from The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Morning Call of Allenstown, and The Intelligencer of Doylestown. It is the venue for speakers, meetings and other events, shows movies and hosts exhibits. This library seems more notable than most, and as you can tell from reading the article, the coverage has provided extensive information. Noroton (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this under the circumstances, but I'm going to disagree and maintain my !vote, though it admittedly weakens. Most of those articles feel more like advertisements for the library, even for the ones you included in the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three established, independent newspapers think enough of a library so that we have significant coverage from them, and that feels like advertising? Sometimes news reporters write positive stories, sometimes they write negative stories. It usually depends on a neutral, "objective" look at the subject. I left out the articles about the guy who exposed himself in the parking lot and got arrested (coverage from the same newspapers) because it didn't seem worth mentioning (as, say, a murder or repeated crimes would be). I think "advertising" is a judgment that needs proof in order to be credible, and, in fact, if the "advertising" is from multiple, independent, reliable sources, it's kosher for WP:Notability. Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Noroton, how about providing the links? I mean, sure, I don't doubt they exist, but which ones are you referring to? Also note that, as you are a long time Wikipedian, it's probably superfluous to note that being derisive and otherwise lawyering here in the AFD won't help your case. I wanna see the goods or I ain't gonna change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1)I get access to newsbank.com through my local library card (not anywhere near this library, by the way) and I don't think the link works behind newsbank's subscription wall, but I'll add the links I have and let's see what happens (I suspect that newsbank will either block the link immediately or after a short while). I always provide footnotes and, whenever available, links, when I edit something. But Wikipedia doesn't require links. Sometimes I create footnotes from physical newspaper clippings or books where no link is available at all. You really should be able to point to some credible reason why you doubt a source, otherwise it sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (2) Specifically, I'm talking about the footnote, "Coffey, Greg, "Like community, library on path of growth", The Intelligencer of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, January 16, 2005, accessed via newsbank.com" as having significant information on the library. Sources from other footnotes also provide detailed information about specific aspects of the library and examples of the types of events there. (3) Be specific yourself: Which one of the four types of wikilawyering described at WP:WIKILAWYER are you accusing me of? What I'm doing is giving a detailed case, not using legalistic language or using the words rather than the spirit of the policies. I'm saying that some editors have misconstrued what WP:N says. (4) Don't be so sensitive: I'm attacking your arguments, not you or anybody else. I am describing what you're doing wrong in making the case that you make, but that's not any kind of attack on you or your character. (5) I'm sorry I sound derisive. Again, it's directed at arguments, not people, but I'll try to avoid that. I really am sincerely trying to meet editors' objections. Noroton (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm revisiting this here. Is this a branch in a network of libraries (such as what King County Library System operates), or is this a standalone library in a larger system? That might make a decision - an individual branch in a network is rarely notable, but a standalone might win. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not at all notable. Most libraries in western countries run various activities and these occassionally get written up in the local press so there's nothing special about this library. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under your personal definition of notable, it isn't notable. Under Wikipedia's definition of notable, it's notable. At WP:DGFA, closing admins are instructed to discount arguments against policy and guidelines. Noroton (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am aware of WP:NOTE and it was the basis of my vote. I don't see how stories about routine activities at a library published in local newspapers constitute the "significant coverage" WP:NOTE requires or how these activities are "worthy of notice", which is another requirement. Likewise, I don't see how this article meets WP:ORG as the references are covering routine and essentially trivial activities which are conducted in most libraries. More generally, the number of Google hits isn't by itself proof of any notability - those stories don't say that the library has been recognised as a leader in its field or that anything noteworthy has happened there.
In cases like this where automatic notability doesn't apply the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates - they need to demonstrate why it's important enough to belong in an encyclopaedia. Has the library been recognised as being particularly innovative or successful by one of the relevant professional associations? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and reread WP:NOTE, please do the same, particularly "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. "Significant" clearly refers to the amount of coverage. When you write "the references need to do more than prove that the subject of the article exists and operates" you're right, but only in that the references need to provide some significant amount of detail about the subject; you're incorrect that they have to prove anything else at all in terms of establishing notability. WP:NOTE also explicitly states in the first paragraph: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. And WP:NOTE also states: "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. To recap, WP:NOTE is about objective evidence concerning the amount of coverage, without regard to "subjective personal" judgment on what has enough "fame" or "importance" to be worthy of an article. Certainly a judgment call needs to be made as to what amount of coverage is "trivial" or "significant", but I don't think anyone can deny that there is a significant coverage from a reliable, independent source here (in fact, from more than one). Oh, and my citing Ghits was just to show that plenty of sources actually existed, not to say that the number of them proved notability. Since I've actually now added sources, that early point is now irrelevant. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that interpretation of WP:NOTE. A large volume of potential references which only cover routine and trivial topics does not constitute "substantive" coverage - my Oxford English Dictionary defines 'substantive' in this context as "having a firm or solid basis; important, significant;". Local press stories about reading groups being run and car parks sometimes being full don't fall into this category as they don't demonstrate that this library does anything other than provide routine services to its customers. As local libraries are not automatically notable, such references do not establish notability - WP:ORG is pretty clear on the point that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Moreover, the basic claim to notability here seems to be that this library is unusually successful. However, none of the references appear to prove this (as I suggested above, is there a report of the library winning a significant award? - its' website doesn't state that it has), and original research is needed to link them together and claim that they mean anything - how does this library compare to the library in the next suburb? - is it also busy? As a sidenote, I would suggest that you stop posting uncivil comments which accuse other experienced editors of acting in bad faith and ignorance when they state that this article is on a non-notable topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When did I accuse you or anyone of acting in bad faith? I'm telling you that you have to follow WP:N or WP:ORG. Your response that you're only interpreting it differently. I'm saying cannot intepret these guidelines to mean the opposite of what they mean, and I'm showing you exactly how you're doing that. It isn't a personal attack, it's an attack on your argument. You can do or say all sorts of wrongheaded things and do them in good faith (we all do). I don't need to or want to question your good faith, and I haven't.
This is not a matter of interpretation, just accurate reading of what is clearly stated: WP:ORG states in the first paragraph in the "Primary criterion" section that there are three classes of sources: those that give substantial, non-substantial or trivial coverage. You cannot read that paragraph any other way. It is only in describing the sources' "depth of coverage" that the word "substantial" is used in WP:ORG (and only in describing depth of coverage that "substantive" and significant" come up at WP:NOTE). And you can't interpret "substantive coverage" in a way that directly contravenes WP:N's definition of "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. If you want to argue that "substantive coverage" is really different from "significang coverage", then you're fighting the whole spirit and context of WP:ORG and WP:N, as well as the specific statement at the top of WP:ORG that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Your chosen dictionary definition isn't allowed to trump that.
The first footnote in this article has "depth of coverage" which is substantial. Footnotes 4, 6, and 7 are not sources giving "substantial" coverage, but neither are they "trivial" coverage, which WP:ORG specifically describes with examples such as "newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Wikipedia does not label all "routine" coverage as trivial the way you do, and in interpreting WP:ORG or WP:N, you're not allowed to stretch your definition of "trivial" so far that it breaks the definition Wikipedia gives you. (Footnote 5 could be interpreted as "trivial coverage", by the way.) Those nonsubstantial, nontrivial sources can establish notability ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"). So we have an independent, reliable source that is substantial/substantive/significant along with multiple (a total of three, although two would be multiple), independent, reliable sources that are not trivial. Again, none of this is a matter of interpretation. All of it refers to depth of coverage. Noroton (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You immediately accused both me and Capitalistroadster of using a "personal definition of notable" rather than the relevant guideline when we voted that the article is on a non-notable topic. Now that I've identified the specific parts of this guideline I think that the article doesn't meet you're claiming that I'm "fighting the whole spirit and context of WP:ORG and WP:N" (eg, that I'm rejecting a key and widely accepted guideline) and that hence only your interpretation of this guideline can be correct here. Footnotes 4, 6 and 7 are hidden behind a log-in and only reference trivia - hosting a common type of discussion group, having goats on the lawn once and having a display commemorating WWII in 1997 (all of which were apparently organised and run by groups other than the actual library, which seems to have merely provided the space for them) are routine kinds of activities for libraries and don't establish any notability.--Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of my case:The Coffey footnote (Footnote 1) means the article meets WP:N and WP:ORG by providing a reliable, independent source giving "significant", "substantive", and "substantial" information on the subject, which is all that the clear language of WP:ORG actually requires (WP:N says "multiple sources are generally preferred", and WP:ORG requires only a single source). Although it's unnecessary, the alternative standard in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion allows multiple, nontrivial, reliable, independent sources to create notability. This is done with: Melada (Footnote 8: Mideast lecture protest against the library) and Cascerceri (Footnote 4: Socrates Cafe), and I would argue, the Piro (#6: goats) and Phelan (#7: WWII exhibit) are nontrivial, because the depth of coverage is more than a passing mention. It is irrelevant to a deletion discussion that there are other footnotes and other material in the article. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Nick Dowling: Disagreeing with you, even forcefully, is not attacking you. You've described notability standards in ways that don't relate back to Wikipedia's actual notability standards even as interpretations. "Interpretation" isn't another word for "preference", and the actual language and spirit of the guideline must be followed (although you can argue a common-sense exception, you're arguing in effect for nullification). Whether or not you dislike it, your notability standards are personal. When Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear, not accepting them invites chaos, disruption and waste as editors who try to follow policies become frustrated and leave as they see their work deleted arbitrarily. You're always welcome to try to change the guidelines. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails to establish why this library is notable outside its local area. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another personal definition of notability. A million Wikipedians can hava a million definitions of notability, but Wikipedia itself has WP:Notability. Before editing or working on an article, should Wikipedia editors try to guess what definitions might be used in AfDs or should they consult WP:Notability and follow that definition? Second option seems more rational. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to belabor the point, from WP:ORG: Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Capitalistroadster, your disagreement is with that guideline. Noroton (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete. Is there any way for me to actually review the references? If so, I will review to see if any of the references establishes significant coverage, although with the titles and information in the article I can not say I am hopeful. As it stands, though, the article clearly does not establish notability, per WP:N. To be clear, it the second point of the notability requirements that I, and I believe those above, are objecting to. I see nothing that addresses the actual subject here, instead it is merely events that occurred at the subject. SorryGuy  Talk  04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the references, I still feel as though mentions are mostly trivial, as expected above. I would however support a merge to the Telford city article. SorryGuy  Talk  04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feelings? Mostly trivial? "Mostly" doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the minumum sourcing is there. But I've said that, demonstrated that and sent you copies of the articles. Proving that the minimum standard is more than met. But mere proof doesn't matter. Don't ask me to send you copies of the articles if you're going to rely on feelings, ask me to send candy and flowers instead of proof. Noroton (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. — from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Noroton (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you respond to a vote of non-notability by making uncivil comments and accusing another experienced editor of deliberately ignoring the relevant policies when they decided that this library does not meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urobasican[edit]

Constructed non-notable language, prod tag removed. Appears to be entirely fictional. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bookyards[edit]

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

Spammish page for a website that doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:WEB, was going to prod it, but it was prod deleted before, Delete Secret account 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:07, January 17, 2008

Moroccan diaspora[edit]

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

Delete Unencyclopedic. No source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete seems like a dictionary entry for a foreign language term, padded with original research. Pharmboy (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite it's name, this is a list of places that former Moraccans live, and how many live there. It seems very almanacish, but not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not for lists of statistics. Further, the author blanked the AfD notice off the page causing me to renominate it (oops; Twinkle didn't catch this one already open, I need to be more careful)--CastAStone//(talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CampaignCircus[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable web site, maybe also a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability of the web site. JJL (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using campaigncircus.com since they launched, they have the a great collection of campaign ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.35.108 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 217.132.35.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be a hoax as far as I can tell, but I'm not sure what could possibly be said about it beyond being a site that has videos of political commercials and such. The referenced article does mention CampaignCircus, but that's it: it's just a mention and doesn't support a potential article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One reference simply says the video is hosted by them, the other makes (at best) a glancing reference to the owner of the site. No notability established, can't be verified. Pharmboy (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by author request. No other substantial contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagshipped[edit]

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

Delete NN neologism Mayalld (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Testing Service[edit]

National Testing Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete NN unsourced NGO Mayalld (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unless there are non-trivial independent reliable secondary sources, I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it has reliable sources, keep. Dekisugi (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the talk page of the article Sabre centaur (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is something relevant to the AfD discussion, please add it here, rather than just asking people to look at the talk page Mayalld (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entity seems quite notable in Pakistan to me, given its prevalence in the university system and the controversy that erupted regarding its uniform requirement in 2007. I've added a good bit of sourcing and am seeking more, but am hampered by my need for English only sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that sources have been added this looks notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pakistani equivalent of the Educational Testing Service in the US would eb artaher strong claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The oraganization is notable in Pakistan, references prove it --- Sabre centaur (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Pouliquen obviously meets bio criteria as both a player and coach in the top division in France. Suggest that nominator has a good read of WP:BIO before nominating further articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Pouliquen[edit]

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Highly notable football coach, now manager of a French First Division team. [15] -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep How is it non-notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Under what conceivable point of WP:N do you think he could possibly fail? You should look over the guidelines again. matt91486 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy deleted by Lectonar per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hermitage[edit]

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Secret CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance (non-admin close). —Travistalk 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stonerichstudio[edit]

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article about a company called Stonerich studio. I do not work for them, i created everything myself with their permission. Why is it up for deletion? There are no sources since its my own writing, I would lke to keep the article, it is not advertising anything, it just talks about the studio and the artist, there are other similiar pages up here. Please explain the problem so I can fix it. Romeo R. Smithen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonerichstudio (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 January 2008

Ok So how do I become a notable person? I would really love to have the article displayed like on Google and other search engines as a wikipedia article ~~Romeo R. SMithen~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonerichstudio (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - "I do not work for them"? According to the article you wrote, you are their Marketing Director! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - see no reason why it shouldn't be a speedy. Why the AfD, Niaz?--Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Almost the entire article is copied from myspace. Algebraist 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment User:Stonerichstudio (a copy of this page) has been nominated at MFD. Algebraist 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete - blatant advertising, non-notable.--ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Do I smell snow in the air? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant spam / advertising by someone who works for the company and then lies about it (or you were lying in the first place, either way not so great).--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is exactly the sort of reason G11 exists. As an additional note, I can't help noticing that both here and here "Romeo R. SMithen" claims not to work for Stonerichstudio, yet claims in the article to be their marketing director and also to own the copyrights to their logos. They can't both be true, and hopefully any potential customers or clients take this conduct into consideration before choosing to do business with either Romeo R. SMithen or Stonerichstudio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Monitor[edit]

Likely hoax. Zero ghits for this "obscure" Australian explorer with suspect biographical details. Lockley (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as WP:hoax per nom. Absolutely nothing turns up on this guy no matter what you search for. Plus the article seems to claim that monitor lizards are named after this 'person', but the truth is that the genus name, "Varanus" is derived from the Arabic word waral ورل, which is translated into English as "monitor". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per AlasdairGreen27. Even the books cited as references seem to be entirely made up.Bjones (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --VS talk 11:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate salad[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE seems to indicate that this article doesn't belong. While some recipes may be appropriate for an article on Wikipedia (such as universally notable ambrosia salad), this has no claim of notability and only the name "watergate" in the name, which means nothing by itself. Wikipedia isn't a recipe guide, and this recipe makes no attempt to assert notability. Pharmboy (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 11:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4PSA VoipNow[edit]

4PSA VoipNow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A contested prod. Prod reason was: "Non-notable software. Provides no secondary sources. Read like an advertisement. Fail WP:V and WP:NOTE." Pastordavid (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom; note also that large portions of the text are jargony to the point to being scarcely intelligible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prodder. BJTalk 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G1 by AliveFreeHappy. (non-admin close). RMHED (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins' Parcel Bin[edit]

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

I think this might be a hoax. It's about a statue in Whitley Bay of a garbage collector and trash can/wastebasket. No sources (link on page is irrelevant) and my google searching turned up no sources. If sources could be found, the uniqueness of this might help make it notable, but as of right now, fails WP:V. I'm going to canvass people who worked on the Whitley Bay article to try and get a better idea of whether this is real. CastAStone//(talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as joke/hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax - prove me wrong if you can. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. It's a hoax for sure. But it's also a cleverly disguised advertisement. Check the (only) link provided. Yngvarr 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as silly hoax. --Lockley (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Yngvarr, disguised advert . (or to be frank, pure vandalism. Deprodder has been reverted for vandalism a lot without getting a single warning, this is not good). Greswik (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

It was not advertising, the bin website was merely a hoax source site. it was the only bin website i could find Gnomerat (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep renamed to standard naming of List of people from Ithaca, New York Gnangarra 11:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of residents and natives of Ithaca, New York[edit]

List of residents and natives of Ithaca, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an arbitrary list, and better served as a category, I think. It's completely unreferenced, and referencing it is tedious. Since the articles themselves should be referenced about the subject's birthplace or residence, a category would be easier to maintain. Mikeblas (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redundant with the category. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WEAK Keep contingent upon this list being subdivided into different subheadings; a simple alphabetical list is redundant with the category, but a list separated under subheadings (e.g. poets, politicians, actors, scientists, etc.) is potentially useful as an article. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:CLS, category is irrelevant and should not be used as a reason to delete. This is just a sub-article of Ithaca, New York broken out due to WP:SIZE and style restraints. Torc2 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'question;' I'm a little confused by this one: it will include all the cornell University people in WP, and a few others. I don't quite see the point of duplication, like a possible "List of residents and natives of Ann Arbor, Michigan" ?
  • The lists might overlap, but that's not a sufficient cause for deletion. Certainly there are people in Ithaca who aren't at Cornell. Incidentally, we do actually have a List of people from Ann Arbor. Torc2 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to List of people from Ithaca, New York and eliminate people who are solely associated through Cornell. Their connection to the city is arbitrary. As a list, it can be sourced, sorted, and annotated, which a category cannot. That this is tedious is certainly not a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it can be annotated and further information on each item can be added. Overall, these lists are easier for readers to navigate than categories are. The standard name for lists like this is the one Dhartung gives. References can be added -- not a deletion reason.Noroton (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Daza-Gillman[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable, written by the person herself. Hasn't achieved anything notable other than being a bember of board of a Swedish political party that received less than 1% of the votes in the last election. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:AB. Slarre (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any coverage by reliable third party sources. Two of the three links in the article don't even appear to have anything to do with her, while the third is to her personal website. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also not even the Swedish wiki has more than a stub about her. --BozMo talk 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus effort needs to be done with addressing the concerns raised Gnangarra 14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuG[edit]

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

Delete NN band per WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article fails to assert any of the criteria criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC: does not yet have two albums released, no awards, no tours, no charted hits. If evidence of those can be found, we can re-evaluate. Powers T 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band is still relatively new and have recently performed at a concert in Germany a country which they are not native to. The concert also had notable bands performing alongside them such as Alice Nine and Kagrra. Could we keep the page for a little while longer until more information can be given? Blkeddie! (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Nishimura[edit]

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

The biographied person of the article, Hiroyuki Nishimura, is not a notable person besides the only fact that he created 2channel there isnt anithing valueble for him to have an enciclopedic article. Besides the fact that it's shallow in the writing it's useless information that can be stub as a section of the article of 2channel. Andres rojas22 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been involved in several big defamation suits over messages posted on 2ch, and has appeared in numerous major news media in Japan including AERA (Asahi), Sankei, and Yomiuri as extensively referenced on the Japanese version of the article. He is also one of the most recognizable net celebrities in Japan and is frequently interviewed for comments on various internet issues. Disregarding him because "2channel is notable, the guy that created it isn't" is as absurd as disregarding Bill Gates and Jimmy Wales by claiming that "Microsoft and Wikipedia are notable, the guys that created them aren't." I don't quite understand how one could recognize the notability of 2ch and yet fail to recognize Hiroyuki's notability. (It would be understandable if one didn't know 2ch also.) --Saintjust (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but theres no possible comparation betwen this guy and Bill Gates. Since when Wikipedia meassuares notability by the amount of gossips and media references a person appears in?. Is this an encyclopedia or a wiki of pop culture?.Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's based quite highly on the number of media references a person appears in. If there are a lot of sources for a person, it will typically demonstrate that they're notable. matt91486 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." "Pop culture" is an important aspect of the society and a worthy subject of scholarship. --Saintjust (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand The japanese article appears to have a not-insignificant number of good references, and as such what is really needed is for the japanese article content to be ported across to EN by a skilled translator LinaMishima (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article does need improving with additional references, the subject amply satisfies Wikipedia:Notability given all the media coverage over the years. --DAJF (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Chris (クリス) (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding It Out[edit]

Grinding It Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Is it a book? A movie? NN per WP:BK or WP:NF. EndlessDan 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom under WP:BK. It's Ray Kroc's autobiography, first published in the 1970's. Gets a mention in the main article about him. Insufficient notability about the book itself to warrant a separate article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a book, and [it's real], but if it deserves an article it deserves a better one than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little context. One sentence article, should definitely be rewritten. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus as failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Such pages should only be created when, as a minimum, a release date has been announced. TerriersFan (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series)[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL. It looks like we're going to have to go through this rigmarole every couple of months = see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 68 (U.K. series). Absolutely no sourced information will be available for at least six months - at least Now That's What I Call Music! 69 (U.K. series) has a release date. Kinitawowi (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE Leave Now 69 page as that is the next one, but delete Now 70 as we know nothing about it. As you say Now 69 has a release date and will have a cover design in the next few weeks 79.75.252.228 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal balling although I'm unconvinced as to the notability of the individual entries in general. Are there 68 other articles? If not, this might be better served as a single article. Also, it (and 69) needs to be renamed as the term "UK series" makes it appear as if this is referring to a television series. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ashton Moore[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 and article on Ashton Moore (Pornographic actress) moved to Ashton Moore. Tabercil (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. In fact the page reads like an autobiography, and we all know WP:AUTO's stance on this is. If the result of this AFD is delete, then I would suggest moving the Ashton Moore (Pornographic Actress) article back to this location. Tabercil (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and move the other Ashton Moore back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismas (talk • contribs) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non notable. If the article reads like an autobio, that's because it is. Check the user page of its creator User:Milesbetter. Good luck kid, when you're a famous novelist, someone'll definitely write an article about you on Wiki. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, I didn't think to look there. Being bold and removing the Ashton Moore on WP:CSD#A7 grounds. I'll move the Ashton Moore, Porn Star article back to it's original place.Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of compliance with WP:BAND and no secondary sources that might constitute direct compliance with WP:N. Also fails WP:V with essential parts of the content unsourced. TerriersFan (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Mass[edit]

Non notable musician. Fails WP:BAND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The President's Daughters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The President's Daughters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a film not yet in production, which does not comply with the notability guidelines for future films. There's no IMDb entry to be found, and the only source mentioning this project is from Mary-Kate Olsen, which is not notable enough coverage beyond a mention at the sisters' article. Proposed deletion was challenged, so here it is. I have no qualms about recreation if the article reflects that the film enters production. Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Shirahadasha (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MM Code[edit]

Delete unreferenced WP:OR and speculation Mayalld (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject is documented on pages 36–38 of ISBN 0470856688 and on pages 49–50 of ISBN 3486258907 (There are probably yet more sources in German by the German name, Moduliertes Merkmal, but I haven't looked.). Much of the article content is verifiable, and not original research. The way to fix the rest is through editing. The subject is documented non-trivially (in one case with diagrams) in at least two reliable and independent published works. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is clearly still in need of much work, but there are already several high-quality references. Strong keep Markus Kuhn (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • D.M.N. (talk · contribs) closed this discussion before the end of the discussion period as a speedy keep, when clearly at least one editor, the nominator, still disagrees. I've re-opened it. There is no reason for this discussion not to go through the proper process. Mayalld's nomination is neither disruptive nor made in bad faith. Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the improvements to referencing, I withdraw the nom Mayalld (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealing Comedy (film)[edit]

Ealing Comedy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete NN unreleased film per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom under WP:NF. I tried to access the website from the link given but failed. The article can be re-created if the film, in time, turns out to be notable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per general WP:N -- though the writer claims it is in post-production, I was unable to find any reliable sources on Google or in Access World News to indicate that this project is notable. No prejudice against recreation if the notability can be established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MOVIE. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the notability guidelines; should the project enter production, or even exist, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Systems BBS[edit]

Dark Systems BBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable article on a non-notable web forum. Declined speedy. 7 ghits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. MER-C 11:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Technically not a website, but the spirit of nn-web surely applies. When an article has to point out stuff like the fact that a local pizza joint advertised there, you know it's pathetically non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I won't go speedy. Well known by whom? Doesn't say even what networks they were on, and gave some of the specs that were used on the system. Near as I can tell, they were a node and nothing more on some of the FTNs, never acted as, say, a Fido hub. Notability fails, gotta go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure it was a very nice BBS, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. RFerreira (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, because there is no consensus in either direction and it could be one of the most evenly split AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Church of Witness Lee[edit]

Local Church of Witness Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural. An identical article, Liite Buddhism, was speedy deleted as a disputed G12 (author claims that it was his material being posted to the article) while in the midst of an AfD. Since speedy deletes are ineligible for G4, I'm nominating for AfD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been voted on , 3 to 1 in favor. Since an AfD was already in progress, and the vote was to keep, and since there was no copyright violation, it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Further this is a duplication of that AfD, all such comments must be posted there. Wyeson 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was closed as a speedy delete (which I agree turned out to have been an incorrect decision) after being open for all of an hour and five minutes. That at the time of closure there were two !votes in favour of keeping (yours wasn't entered until after the AfD had closed) and one for keeping isn't relevant to the present discussion. To reiterate: the result of that AfD was not keep, but rather speedy delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of the copyright policy is a non-negotiable deletable problem if there are no non-copyvio revisions to revert to. MER-C 11:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but I see no reason to doubt User:Wighson's assertion that the material was copied from his blog, and therefore that it is his material to release under the GFDL. If an admin wants to disagree with me, he/she can go ahead and close this one as a speedy too; it just seems very unlikely to me that this article actually is a copyvio. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that who holds the copyright depends on who's hosting the blog. Didn't google or Yahoo! catch some flak a while ago for laying claim to their members electronic writings? I don't think that we can assume that the author actually hold the copyright if it's on a blog. But I'd much rather read what was posted about this. Can somebody point me to the discussion about the copyright concerns? Pairadox (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about 99% certain that you're wrong. Under Blogger's terms of service, copyright rests with the material's creator. As for discussion about the copyright concerns, there weren't any: User:Kusma saw that the text of the article was identical to the text of the blog post and speedied it on the spot (which was a reasonable course of action at the time, I think, even if I now think it was the wrong move). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep. When I commented on the AfD for Liite Buddhism earlier, I was unaware of the existence of this identical article. Had I been, I would've said delete to Liite Buddhism without hesitation.
However, now that that article has been deleted (correctly, as it turns out, but on entirely the wrong grounds) we can move onto this article, and I'll point out now what I said earlier.
A Google search for 'the Local Church of Witness Lee' brings up plenty of results. While that in itself might not be sufficient to establish WP:N, it's certainly strong evidence that deletion would be rash. Those involved should be given a chance to bring the article up to scratch. Sethie is right that a lengthy external links section does not equal references and also right that the article is badly written, in the first person in places. However, those issues are probably more properly ironed out at the article's talk page. Keep it, get it better written and most importantly use the external links and whatever other reliable sources exist to properly reference what the article says. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly irrelevant correction: when you commented in the other AfD, this article didn't exist; it was created in response to the deletion of the other article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Obviously I'm way behind the game here. :-) -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also probably irrelevent: I logged on and couldn't figure out where the article disappeared to. Then I thought maybe there was a problem with its title. Wyeson 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it helps to say this, the whole discussion brought up useful feedback, and I have made improvements reflective of them. Others, of course, are free to make further edits, as usual. Thanks everyone for being so professional, etc. This has been interesting, if nothing else. Wyeson 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earnest question - is there a policy somewhere that sets out burden of proof for potential copyright vios? Because on simple balance of probabilities, it currently seems very much as though there is no such violation with this article, but that obviously falls well short of proof. On the other hand, with uploaded images we don't make people prove that they own them before releasing them under the GDFL - is it different with text? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here, we have an assertion ("this content is mine") that could be trivially proven by Wighson by adding a note to his blog. If he can't do that, we must assume that he doesn't have copyright control over the contentKusma (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great minds think alike - I just (before reading your last comment) sent an e-mail to the blog owner explaining the situation, and suggesting exactly the same solution as you (assuming Wighson and the blog owner are one and the same). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done! Wyeson 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did just receive an e-mail from the e-mail address posted on the blog confirming that User:Wighson and the blog's author are one and the same. Hopefully this will let us stop worrying about the copyright aspect of it, and get on with debating the other bases for deletion or lack thereof. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that we are clear about copyright law, it allows the free expression of facts and ideas. That means the text, form, combination and structure of documents but not the facts themselves are protected by copyright. You are free to use facts and ideas reported on articles or websites, but not copy text from them. In other words, since as far as I can tell the article has not lifted text from the website in question (unless anyone can point to where it has) no copyright violation has taken place. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was lifted pretty much entirely from the website. It's since changed somewhat, but there are still significant passages that are the same ("Shunning public exposure, Liites strenuously avoid identifying themselves in any way to outsiders. Among themselves they call the organization the "Church in" and the name of a thousand different cities, or simply as the "church." Among outsiders they are often called the "Local Church.""). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Material derived from a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Unless we get the original author's permission, we have to delete this. Kusma (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But let's give User:Wighson/the blog owner 24 hours or so to demonstrate that they're one and the same. If they don't/can't, then I'd be all for re-speedying. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My content opinion is to merge everything that can be shown to be originating from reliable sources to Local churches. As Wighson noted in the original revision of the page, the section "Comparison with mainstream Buddhism" is completely original research and thus must not be included in Wikipedia unless reliable sources can be found to verifiably show a connection of the Local churches movement to Buddhism. I urge the author to add citations to every section that show where the content is from; the lengthy list of external links is a very poor substitute for references. Kusma (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I revise this to delete as POV fork of Local churches (which already has a "Criticism" subarticle). Kusma (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flagrant WP:OR- we don't have any RS's linking the Witness Lee movement to Buddhism, claims of "cult" and "anti-semitism" without a WP:RS anywhere in sight. Do we even have a RS for the title "Local Church of Witness Lee"? We have an article on Local Church and Witness Lee, what does cutting and pasting stuff from an un-scholarly blog add? OR, Serious POV-pushing, unsourced claims, and the opinions of non-experts. Sethie (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see a number of websites listed at the bottom of the article, but what I don't see is non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If such sources exist and they can be produced (or if I'm missing them), then I'd change to weak keep, but for now this seems to fail WP:N. MastCell Talk 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also related to this article is Local Church controversies, which has similar problems. I'm still trying to figure out how they, and the blog, all interconnect. Pairadox (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite for NPOV. As it is, this is a one-sided attack page. whatever the nature of the group, and whatever the appropriate name of the article (I suggest " Living Stream Ministry" apparently the legal name used in its lawsuits), it deserves a fairer treatment than: "The Local Church of Chang-Shou Li is a religion that takes the basic doctrines of Chinese folk Buddhism and cloak them in Christian terminology." The sources are sufficient to show the notability. DGG (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have an article about this topic at Local churches. Do you think we should have two? Kusma (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted at request of creator, who also blanked article. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 11:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Everett[edit]

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

Reason Samhyman108 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (and tagged for sourcing) - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Goto[edit]

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

This page appears to be self promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YukioTakahashi (talk • contribs) 2008/01/10 07:03:24

  • Keep. I don't know what the evidence is that the article is self promotional, and that in itself isn't a justification for deleting it as in this case a Google search reveals that the subject enjoys some notability, including a warm review in the Washington Post. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there does seem to be some self-promotion it doesn't seem blatant enough to require deletion. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I'm not seeing much that's self-promotional, and in any case, as long as the subject's notable that's not a valid reason to delete but rather clean up. As AlasdairGreen27 notes, it's fairly easy to find evidence of this prodigy's notability. Keep and tag for sourcing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant review in a major source is sufficient. DGG (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)[edit]

Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tv episode that is mostly a WP:PLOT. This has been tagged for clean-up since July (although the tag has been removed a number of times). There has been no serious effort at addressing the notability issue, so I assume it really can't be done. The only relevant source used is a book by the director and writers of the show; hardly an independent source. Jack Merridew 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POINT-y nomination. Note that the nominator has reverted after I have added further sources as requested in the notability tag. [17] Also see Talk:Command Decision (Dad's Army episode). Catchpole (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point-y characterization is mere bad faith. I having been seeking to have this article cleaned-up for six months. The source I moved to the main show page did not speak to this show episode in any specific manner (not as you were using it, at least). You have been attempting to "establish notability" by plastering general references into articles. --Jack Merridew 11:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim a book entitled Dad's Army has nothing to say about episodes of Dad's Army. You'll have to run that logic by me again. Catchpole (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out my typo; I've changed "show" to "episode" above. However, you are being disingenuous, as I was clear in my edit summary and in my post to you on the article talk page. --Jack Merridew 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Panic! I have added a cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I just cleaned-up a bit; thanks. If people would respond to clean-up tags by cleaning-up instead of just removing the tags or offering trivial coverage, fewer articles would end up at AfD. That said, your source is still rather trivial in regard to this specific episode. --Jack Merridew 11:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reference to the episode in this book. I don't have a copy myself so will leave the cite to someone else. So, I've already found two references in reliable sources. This demonstrates that the assumption in the nomination is incorrect. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now has sources, at worst redirect to the list of episodes page. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that notability is not based on just having a few little numbers scattered around, correct? "Now has sources" is irrelevant when neither provides any context. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article that I cited references the episode in the context of some actual history of the Home Guard. That's the sort of real-world context that we like to see in addition to a synopsis of the plot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it references the series in that context. The episode is just a random mention at the bottom that has nothing to do with the actual article. This would help with the main article, but it provides nothing at all to this single episode. TTN (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It demonstrates that this episode in particular has been noticed. The quality of the writing is unimportant. Presumably, unlike us, the journalist had a deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it shows that they needed an example, and they choose a random episode (perhaps a favorite of one of the staff) to do so. If the episode had something specific that related to the article, then you would have an argument. TTN (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete. It does not have sources. It has the usual generic info and one single article calling it a classic. And looking at the article, "classic" is just being used as a descriptive word that was probably randomly thrown in to provide some "class." I would at least expect a personal comment for it to be considered relevant. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument does not make sense. First you claim the article has not sources. Then you go on to discuss the sources used. Catchpole (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect that he is discriminating between reliable sources and inadequate sources. But, of course, you knew that. --Jack Merridew 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article has several reliable sources. Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)#Further reading. Catchpole (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quit trolling; you're linking to the section I just created and you know it. --Jack Merridew 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE with no assertion of notability and mostly just plot from the two versions, with "references" from primary materials. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My addition was intended to be an assertion of notability - that the episode is classic. The original viewing figure of 8.6 million is an implicit assertion of notability, being a significant fraction of the UK population. WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE are both disputed guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sun is read by nearly 8 million people every day. Does this mean that we should create an article for "The Sun, January 10 2008" and "The Sun, January 11 2008"? No, it means that The Sun is a popular newspaper, just like Dad's Army was a popular series, and is a reason to create articles for the newspaper and the TV series as a whole. To have articles for individual issues, episodes, football matches, and so on, we need to have reliable in depth sources specifically about these issues, episodes, ... WP:NOTE is not really disputed, so we can simply apply the criteria set out there.Fram (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual issues of newspapers certainly can be notable, see Image:The Sun Gotcha.jpg It is routine for the contents of the day's newspapers to reviewed in daily TV and radio reports. There are also more considered digests such as What the Papers Say. And then there are derivative works like Have I Got News for You. So, if one wanted to find secondary sources for a particular issue of the Sun, it could be quite feasible. An episode of Dad's Army is even more notable because it gets a significant audience when it is repeated and so the total number of views for an episode like this must be about 100 million. My view is that each episode is a small play and a play with viewing figures on this scale seems evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whether to merge with other episodes is a editing decision to be dealt with by consensus at the article. DGG (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an obviously pointy nomination by Jack Merridew who has been stalking various Dad's Army articles for ages even though they are more than adequately sourced, despite the false claim of the nominator. Tim! (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a point here, it is that the article is not adequately sourced; please find a reliable source that comments in a non-trivial manner about this specific episode. --Jack Merridew 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you stopped edit warring (violating 3rr in the process), you might have noticed that your assumption about the source "McCann, Graham (2001). Dad's Army: The story of a classic television show. Fourth Estate. ISBN 1-84115-308-7. " was wrong, because it does actually cover individual episodes. Tim! (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - flimsy nomination based on a personal interpretation of our dysfunctional fiction guidelines. In addition to the books already mentioned, there is also Dad's Army: A Companion and Dad's Army: The Making Of A Television Legend. This show was huge in its day; each episode was reviewed in the press of the time. I assume none of the delete votes are from UK editors.--Nydas(Talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: Dad's Army: A Celebration.--Nydas(Talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to actually show that these actually provide information relevant to this single episode. While books like these sometime have good information, it's usually based on the full series rather than single episodes. TTN (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't. We merely need to decide that it is probable. Which it is, if you look at the blurbs on Amazon or Bookfinder.--Nydas(Talk) 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can provide specific quotes saying "All episodes have full coverage and detailed production information", nothing is probable when it comes to books like these. TTN (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is "probable" and inferences derived from blurbs on Amazon considered a substitute for researching reliable sources? Pairadox (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to the fiction deletionist ideology, it's quite legit to make judgement calls as to the probable existence of printed sources. Especially for pre-Internet fiction like this.--Nydas(Talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's twice that you've indicated that certain ideologies are unqualified to render proper judgement on this. One doesn't have to be from the UK (or an inclusionist) to understand that in order for a book to be used as a source, that book must actually have been read and material from incorporated into the article. If that isn't done then it's not a source, it's a guess. Pairadox (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reviewing the LOE page, it is quite informative so it is unclear why individual episode articles that clearly cannot aspire to the assertion of real-world notability persist. They should be changed into redirects. Bringing an article to AfD that clearly fails guidelines and policies is hardly WP:POINT and whether a show was popular or not - (see WP:ATA - cannot alleviate the requirement to demonstrate notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The LOE is a featured list and covers the episodes adequately - which is to say, well. --Jack Merridew 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - independent source. too big to be incorporated onto LOE (agree it is a nice list). Speaking of systemic bias, we have to be wary of recentism. I am sure many editors weren't born when this was around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point. The Simpsons episodes have good articles because the sources are easy to find to provide tons of background & reviews. Finding such sources, while they exist, is more difficult for older programmes like this. Wikipedia should not be year-biased, which is what we are endangered of becoming. All these articles, like Fawlty Towers, are from very popular and successful sitcoms of their day, and should be kept. Wikipedia has no finish-by-date, and these can be improved. We could of course spend more time doing so if certain editors did go and round and do disruptive things like this. Why don't they try and improve an article?--UpDown (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A good example is the The Phil Silvers Show which is highly notable (was #1 in a Radio Times chart of top sitcoms) but doesn't even have an article for a list of episodes. This is obviously because it was a 50's show. We should be capturing such info while we can. Deleting the good info that we already have is like the foolishness of the BBC who deleted many episodes of classic shows before coming to their senses. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep as long as the sources from the two independent books are added Will (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above.--UpDown (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 days to establish notability, otherwise redirect to the LoE that already covers this episode. If notability/real-world information truly exists (which I can't check), then the article can be resurrected with the appropriate sources. – sgeureka t•c 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The newspaper reference is a mention, not a reference. Like most episodes of most series, it essentially isn't possible to demonstrate that an individual episode is notable. I see no reason to believe that reliable sources of real-world impact of this episode that discuss the episode directly and in detail can be found. If they can be, resurrect the article at that time.Kww (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LoE if Notability is not established. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - is not 'simply a plot' and should be much more than it is now.--Alf melmac 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be plenty of reason to believe notability (and references) exist. Especially given the timeframe of this article, it is a good enough reason to keep. Sources should be added ASAP. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, 2000 ghits for "Comand Decision" "Dad's Army". Not bad for something from 1974 and shows evidence that notability may exist. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete: per arguments about WP:BLP1E and lack of sourcing. MastCell Talk 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Kumar[edit]

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

Nom under WP:BIO1E. Heartwarming as this story is, and ideal for a magazine in the dentist's waiting room, the boy has a degree of fame but certainly no notability. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete as largely having been copied and pasted from The Independent. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've removed the copyvio content. Now, I say weak keep contingent upon the article getting better sourced; I think the subject may be notable for the same reasons Jessica McClure is notable (even though no Pulitzer Prizes came out of the Prince Kumar rescue}. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This belongs to Wikinews. utcursch | talk 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete: no reliably sourced content to merge. MastCell Talk 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Force Cast[edit]

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

Article was tagged for speedy as .. It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, online game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Speedy contested and probably should have a review by editors in general. --VS talk 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into TheForce.Net -- pb30<talk> 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. The speedy delete criteria still apply. No assertion of notability is made in the article. No reliable sources talking about the podcast are given, nor can I find any via Google. Not every podcast should have a WP article. What warrants one for this particular podcast? eaolson (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted and redirected to Sigma Phi Epsilon. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Pi Alpha[edit]

Theta Pi Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Organization fails N. Only one chapter at one university. Official site doesn't work. Already merged with another organization. miranda 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not even exist anymore.Trey (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, this is a fraternaty that existed for less than a year? Recentism at its worst. Delete. Single campus groups should be notable institutions (presumably with a long or widely-examined history). This is no Skull and Bones. Cool Hand Luke 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxhead the Rooms[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Article provides no evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content. JavaTenor (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are literally thousands of random little Flash games online. A couple of them - such as Desktop Tower Defense and N - are notable. Most of them, however, are not - this one included. Zetawoof(ζ) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. There are so many flash games that I don't see why this one has notability. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, let alone sources to prove it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are at least three games in this series, I found 2 reliable sources The Escapist and Channel 4, along with one shaky blog FlashGN.com, but the Channel 4 is tiny. Even to cover them collectively this really isn't enough to provide sufficient reception. If another good source like The Escapist turns up then I'll switch to keep and expand the article into a 'boxhead series' one. Someoneanother 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Sure there are literally thousands of many little flashgames online, yet this one has severe notability, due to the fact that is has been played by more people than imaginable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio from [18]. Kusma (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liite Buddhism[edit]

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

Libelabous, extremely poorly written, un-sourced, with claims of anti-semitism Sethie (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely well written, multiple sources -- many of which Sethie deleted.
That the article alleges Anti-Semitism is a reason to keep it, Sethie seems to be saying that he is an Anti-Semite, since he wants to delete articles that are against it.
Nothing "libelabous", whatever that means.
Sethie admits never reading the article (see Talk:Liite_Buddhism): Trust me- I didn't waste a full three minutes on this "article." Therefore he has no standing even to comment on it.
Therefore, considering that:
(1) Sethie never read the article;
(2) Antisemitism is not something to sweep under the rug;
(3) Sethie deleted 9 reliable sources and then claimed it was unsourced;
Sethie is operating outside Wikipedia policy and is making a nuisance. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Delete This article makes very strong claims about a religious movement, without providing a single WP:RS. I have pruned through the supposed "sources" that were listed in the external links section- most of them were blogs or did not even mention this group. Article reads like someones research paper, using first person! :) Sethie (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sethie states quite clearly that he never read the article: Talk:Liite_Buddhism. He also violated the The Reverts rule seven times!!! Ignore him or ban him. Castanea dentata (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is now nominated for deletion. If you want to keep the article, your time would be better-spent arguing its merits than attacking the editor who nominated it for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As I stated quite clearly above, the article as written contains a number of excellent primary sources, thorough explanations, excellent organization into sections, numerous internal wikilinks, and adds new information into Wikipedia's database.
Further, it adds to the corpus of understanding of anti-Semitism and is therefore of particular importance and relevance. By the way, I keep encountering "Edit conflict" sorry for that. Castanea dentata (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search for 'the Local Church of Witness Lee' brings up plenty of results. While that in itself might not be sufficient to establish WP:N, it's certainly strong evidence that deletion would be rash. Those involved should be given a chance to bring the article up to scratch. Sethie is right that a lengthy external links section does not equal references and also right that the article is badly written, in the first person in places. However, those issues are probably more properly ironed out at the article's talk page. Keep it, get it better written and most importantly use the external links and whatever other reliable sources exist to properly reference what the article says. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote it from scratch. I wrote it originally for an e-list. It will need further revision from that format to this; but I was tired, and since it is better than other articles I have started here before, I was not concerned. I agree that it adds to information Wikipedia needs to have, which is why I put it up. We need more knowledge about such things. Sorry CD, for causing you any trouble. It looks like 3 to 1 in favor of Keeping?Wyeson 10:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio by Uncle G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobii[edit]

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

Article was speedy tagged and has been deleted twice already. Now returned on a third occasion and contested. Comments sought from interested editors. --VS talk 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt. Nothing has changed from its original speedies. Nuke it now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio by Uncle G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Sky[edit]

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

Article has been speedy tagged and prodded by a number of editors. I make no comment as to keep or delete but leave the matter for public wiki discourse. --VS talk 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 + silly hoax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tree giving society of tree givers who are against smelly smells[edit]

The tree giving society of tree givers who are against smelly smells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, almost impossible to verify, unreferenced VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 08:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwan Aborigine issues-related articles in the news[edit]

List of Taiwan Aborigine issues-related articles in the news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy delete and contested. List may be valuable if improved as suggested so I now put it up for review from wider audience. --VS talk 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete CSD G11: Blatant Advertising by User:Anthony Appleyard (non-admin close). —Travistalk 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videology[edit]

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

Article is written in a spamish tone, possible WP:COI issues, and the sources do not seem to establish notability. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, my name is Gaetan and I'm the editor of the Videology page you've considered for deletion.

    It's never been my intention for the page to appear spammish, but I guess it's hard to keep an objective mind when writing about something you helped create. Since your comment I've attempted to erase signs of 'spammish' or subjective nature. Hope this will do…

    If - in the future - there will be any public criticism about Videology, I will also add these references in order to keep the article as balanced as possible.

    Cheers,

    Gaetan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videology (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current article does not show notability of a web page. It has references but unreliable sources. All sources link to its own web, blogs and a forum posting. Dekisugi (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please guys... We are a small non-profit webzine with a noble course… to give young artists and directors a forum and a way to clarify their visions. Of course we don't have that many references yet.

    I guess the most reliable is [19] where you can see a lot of unbiased blogs picking up on our posts.

    Thank you. Videology (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. If you don't have any references, then it means that you are not notable enough to have your own article in Wikipedia. Please remember Wikipedia is not a vehicle to advertise you or your company. Dekisugi (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK.. I've added about 10 references from independent sources around the world (German, Moldavian, Spanish, Canadian, Australian). They all refer to the interviews or have added our video player. Hope this makes us notable enough... I love Wikipedia to much to use it as a vehicle. I've patiently waited to enter the Videology article.Videology (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are still unreliable. Many sources are coming from the primary source (its own website), thus it is not neutral. Others sources are linked to blogs and forum posting, which are unreliable. See my comment above. Dekisugi (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 7 sources are coming from Videology, to 19 comming from other sites. Only one site in the reference list is a forum. The rest are bloggers who pick it up, we do not spam or pay them. two sites are official artist sites from major bands. Check their myspace: [CSS] - [Jeff Lewis]. in addition are 2 links to major record labels who added our video player because of a Videology interview with their bands: [Monotreme records] - [Barsuk records] Videology (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's why I said couple of times that they are not reliable sources. Please read WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. Dekisugi (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have read and I do understand, but like it says 'guidelines' (not rules) put together to prevent abuse. Please in this case visit some of these links and let your common sense judge... and if still in doubt, see CSS, Jeff Lewis, Barsuk and Monotreme as a reference.Videology (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've seen those websites. They are not reliable. The sources are only a trivial mentioning of the subject. The guidelines are set as a basis for the policy. Without non-trivial independent reliable secondary sources, any articles are subjected for deletion on the basis of non-notabilty. Dekisugi (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • indeed "subjected for..." what more can i say.. it's out of my hands. Videology (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of our official content policies. It does not exist merely to prevent abuse. It, in conjunction with our other content policies, defines what content is acceptable here, and is determined by the fundamental nature of the project. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy Delete not notable, blatant COI, and very spammy Mayalld (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11 LightAnkhC|MSG 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dotsam[edit]

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

Merely a definition of a non-notable neologism. Deleted from Wiktionary for this very reason. 1360 ghits. MER-C 07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Park Builder 3D[edit]

Theme Park Builder 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I came across this article today and realized that it was a copy of an article that had already been deleted once last year right here. I have picked through the Ghits that come up for this game and have not been able to find anything that establishes notability under WP:N. At this time I still do not see anything new about this game that warranted recreation after having already been deleted once. Trusilver (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD G4 Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal balling, right in the lead sentence. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - A game perhaps about to be written? Gimme a break. First, write and publish the game, then (if it becomes notable, at that) write the article. And speedy, because the exact same viral ad for an upcoming product has already been deleted, half a year ago. Down the chute it goes! Freederick (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I also removed a link to this article that was included as a 'see also' on the Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 article. This really appears to be the same self-promotion that the last article was, and still isn't notable. Trusilver (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt because it's a recreation of deleted material. The creators of the game are NN. No reliable sources for game. Only ghits are for forums, myspace pages and mirrors of the official site. Doc Strange (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSince it's not notible, only allow recreation when there is more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan602 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, via reasons of nominator. Fangz of Blood 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Kate Furness Free Library[edit]

Helen Kate Furness Free Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not demonstrate notability. Article orphaned for more than 1 year. Rtphokie (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listing incomplete nomination. –Pomte 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bongwarrior. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. While Wikipedia is not a directory, the list can be used for now to track which colleges have articles. KrakatoaKatie 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering colleges in Pune[edit]

List of engineering colleges in Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory: the name, addresses and course offered of these colleges do not seem to me to be an encyclopedic subject. Goochelaar (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listing incomplete nomination. –Pomte 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funday PawPet Show[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable online streaming program. Delete. Looking at the last AFD, yes, I see it was covered in two articles by local news sources. Two articles total for a show running nearly ten years is not a demonstration of notability, by my standards. It's a footnote; just about every local public access show can manage that much press. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Way back in ye olden days of January 2005, I voted to keep it, but that was well before we had developed our current strong notability and verifiability policies. I just can't see us keeping this with our current standards. The "weak" is for nostalgia value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree that more verifiable sources would be nice, it's a pity if this has to go - it's an interesting piece of web history, and by no means fading away. As noted in the article, it raised over $10,000 support in a recent telethon - about as much as the larger furry conventions raise for charity. GreenReaper (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. We _do_ have the "Orlando Sentinel" reference - this article will have to stand or fall on that. Very notable within the fandom, but - as with everything within any fandom - not a great deal of real-world impact. However, not a _zero_ real world impact - let's see how it goes. Tevildo (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Two articles total for a show running nearly ten years is not a demonstration of notability, by my standards. - it is by mine. News coverage isn't diluted by how long the show has been going, and notability is not temporary. Torc2 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was featured in the Orlando Sentinel and something else, evidently; the Sentinel covering it is more than just a footnote. Passes WP:N, but barely. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't the most notable thing in the universe, but it is notable enough and meets our standards for verifiability. RFerreira (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, links and ISBNs provided did not verify, possible WP:HOAX Shirahadasha (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Murszewski[edit]

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

Hoax. No indication that this person exists on Google, nor does the book cited seem to exist. Article creator is new and made some questionable edits, and there seems to be some sock puppetry going on (see history page). Sending to AFD since people have been taking tags off. hateless 7:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Hoax. I looked up both of those ISBN numbers; one of them belongs to a completely different book from what the reference claims, the other one doesn't even exist. Trusilver (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Utterly fails WP:BIO. One ghit on "Jessica Murszewski" at classmates.com and, as Trusilver noted, the ISBN numbers don’t add up. If she really did what the article claims, I’m confident that more information would turn up on Google. —Travistalk 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating several elements of WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosocial[edit]

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

for the same reasons to delete homosocial (see afd). Except this is also original research. YVNP (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons given in the homosociality AfD (widespread use in thousands of scholarly articles and hundreds of books). Pperhaps a case could be made for merging the two articles, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. --Itub (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons given in the homosociality AfD - over 2000 articles on Google Scholar - I haven't vetted them, but even if only 1% of them are reliable - this concept is notable Fosnez (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP guidelines to avoid neologisms. There are no supporting references to show it's not original research. Majoreditor (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the references in Fosnez's Google Scholar search are empirical studies published in respected journals such as the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Therapy and Research, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This topic has been widely recognized for decades, and several standardized tests have been developed to measure the construct. Many reliable sources are available to reference this article. Valerius (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this appears to be a notable concept of sociology. The article is stubby, but could be expanded using some of the references mentioned already. Aleta (Sing) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, but the peacock terms have to go. KrakatoaKatie 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sreevalsan[edit]

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

This article does not offer any clear reasons why this singer is notable. It looks like he's released several albums, but the biographical section looks like more of a promotional tool than an indicator of his success. Any thoughts? Cue the Strings (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which says, "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Which is clearly the case for this guy. Even if he were non-notable, I don't see how redirecting to the type of music he sings would be any kind of helpful redirect for users, or why information about him should go on that page. cab (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article is actually created for “Dr. Sreevalsan J Menon”. Some of your above mentioned comments on search results are re-directing to piped links. As per my search, it doesn’t show much notability. To some extent, those two hindu news are ok but, can not consider as independent source. This is almost same as this. There are many Carnatic musicians in India who doesn’t even have articles as they all not much notable like this. --Avinesh Jose  T  09:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For each of your points:
  1. There are many Carnatic musicians in India who doesn’t even have articles as they all not much notable like this --- see WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. This debate is about this article and its sources, not about whether people have had time to write articles about other similar subjects, or whether those articles have reliable sources or not.
  2. This is almost same as this. That's a person being directed to a show on which she was the anchor. That's very different than directing a musician to his genre.
  3. Some of your above mentioned comments on search results are re-directing to piped links. I don't understand at all what you mean. Piped links are Wikipedia links where the text of the link is different than the linked article. That has nothing to do with Google search results.
Finally, even searching on the name "Sreevalsan J Menon" gives 24 Google News hits [20], e.g. these 3 [21][22][23] beyond those already listed on the article. And why exactly do you claim The Hindu is not an independent source? cab (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (below):
  1. There are many Carnatic musicians...We create articles based on a person’s significant contributions, well known work and wide notability per per this and this. In this case, The hindu news 1 is just mentioned his name in three places with photo (of course) along with OTHER musicians (note that the article has not exclusively created for this musician). And news 2, is also speaks about a group work (mentioned three artists) and doesn’t consider as an exclusive news article for this musician.
  2. This is almost same as this. In this case, though there is a hindu article existing, the WP article was deleted. Because, there are no significant contributions from the person and nothing more to write as an encyclopedia article.
  3. piped links...I was talking about the term 'pipe link' during a search. Because, you mentioned (in the very first comment) that Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL searches on ‘Sreevalsan’. But most of them are redirecting like a WP:PIPE link as that the ‘Sreevalsan’ is quite common name in Kerala (India) & many results are redirecting to some other WebPages (speaks about different Sreevalsan's).
As you later did “Dr. Sreevalsan J Menon” (hardly gives 10 results) or remove ‘Dr’ gives another 24 results. 100% I agree that Hindu is an Independent news source. But none of those articles have been exclusively created for this musician. Therefore, still, in my opinion, the article must be re-directed/deleted at this stage. The rest is up to decision maker. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt the earth. east.718 at 00:05, January 17, 2008

Master Passion Greed[edit]

Master Passion Greed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination - was incorrectly listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 9 by User:Heliosis, his reasoning is below. Stormie (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page for this single is completely false. Nothing has ever been said by the band about this song being a single, the cover submitted for it was a fan made creation combining Nightwish's logo, Within Temptation's Album Artwork and Evanescence's font. The song had been said to never be performed like by the band. --"heliosis" Talk
Delete delete delete and delete. The song "Soul to the Skies" that according to the article will be featured really is a Tarot song. And spank the kid that created the article a while... - Aki (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected. - Aki (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should generally leave the page as is during an afd, and since Painjoiker seems so intent on re-creating the article (as well as removing the afd tag) it's not going to do much good anyway, and as such I suggest the page be salted. Extreme, perhaps, but seems the easiest solution. Rehevkor (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if the closing decision is to redirect, it would probably be worthwhile to protect the redirect page. --Stormie (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt track is no more notable than a million other songs. They don't all merit an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. As well as the below 4 Keep's, the article is in the process of expansion. D.M.N. (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogationist College[edit]

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

Unremarkable university with little or no coverage supported by reliable sources Wisdom89 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've included it here in the English Wikipedia because it is nominated as featured article in the Tagalog Wikipedia. (See tl:Wikipedia:Mga nominasyon para sa Napiling Artikulo at Larawan and tl:Rogationist College, if you can understand Tagalog.) It will be really odd that it would be not included here and it would be a featured article in the Tagalog Wikipedia. I will expand it later. --Jojit (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jojit (if it's a featured article in another language, it's probably notable enough for us) and because colleges are mostly inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently the article has only been nominated for featured status in Tagalog, but the rest of my comment still stands. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Colleges and universities are generally notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. I've done a simple Google search and I don't see how this college might be an exception and not deserving of an article. --seav (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Truly, colleges are notable. And per our basic policy about notability, which says that it must be noted in a reliable source independent of the subject, it is notable. The Manila Bulletin actually has an article about it. Check [http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2007/07/18/SCAU2007071897986.html Manila Bulletin Online's article about it. -- Felipe Aira 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Insufficient notability. Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misa Campo[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:Notability. Claims within article to notability include "a regular fixture within the pages of such magazines as Version C Models Magazine, Uno magazine, and DragSport", "featured as one of Maxim magazine’s “Show Us Something” girls in September of 2006" and "named an IGN DVD Babe of the Day in 2007". However, searching shows that Version C, Uno and DragSport themselves aren't notable enough for articles. In the case of the Maxim and IGN appearances, the appearances' titles don't appear to be listed for any other articles (i.e. nobody else on Wikipedia is listed as a "Show Us Something" girl or "DVD Babe of the Day"), suggesting that these appearances are not notable. Kelvinc (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page and originally it had some good info, etc. But I think now I agree, there isn't enough information about her though she might be eligible to merit an article. --Huper Phuff talk 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay train[edit]

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

Neologism without importance Wisdom89 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabon (street)[edit]

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

This article has been AFD'd before but was decided as "no consensus", I'm trying again after 1.5 years and upon inspection the article might have grown but it certainly has to be in the rather empty Abucay, Bataan article, not here as the street per se isn't notable and I doubt a publication may have published something about this street. --Howard the Duck 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No concensus (default keep); editors can merge and redirect as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman insignia[edit]

Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no need for this article. Most of content in this article is about Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman, but a Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewman article already exists. There is also very litte information about the Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman insignia in this article, which is what this article should really be about. Outdawg (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see anyone talking about deleting the SEAL badge or any other military badge except this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewbrownny (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metanoya RockOnFusion[edit]

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

Seems to fall just short of WP:BAND. No decent references, or claim of notability in article Montchav (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link for the bands record label returns a page reading "Hello World!", which is a red flag right there. Googling for "Metanoya RockOnFusion" and "review" yields no results to demonstrate notability. Likewise, the mp3 download chart may indicate some sort of local following, but nothing to demonstrate notability. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Delete. The group does not appear to have a level of importance for inclusion here at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonafide Rojas[edit]

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

No sources, appears made up(?) Sydney Know It Alltalk 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You tagged it speedy after your afd, so I'm not sure what direction this is going. In any event, I was able to dig up quite a few sources on this. Here [24] is just one. If they satisfy notability is another story (and WP:VANITY, too). Yngvarr 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not made up, but no sources in article to show notability, and gsearch isn't coming up with notability in first half dozen pages of hits. Above "source" is a blurb at Amazon -- while it shows the poet exists, it isn't an independent source and doesn't show notability. (And while Amazon sales ranks don't mean a whole lot, a rank of 3,514,484 isn't too impressive). --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comment. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer post[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This article makes no assertion of the game being played anywhere other than locally. More critically, it does not indicate where it has received any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, delete as a non-notable, non-verifiable game. —C.Fred (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. One critical difference is that beer pong includes a rather long reference list, including some very reliable major newspapers. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a joke. Clearly, anetode is not making comparisons or basing it on his personal preference (note his "delete per nom"). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete I can't see how an article with only in universe references can have established any external real world notability. The place to rewrite the notability guideline is the talk page of said guideline. The delete is reversable if some real world independant sources can be found. Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Femax[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of various pieces of the plot sections of the many articles on the Transformers. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per a nonexistant policy I've invented called WP:REDUNDANTCRUFT. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article about Transformers planets. JIP | Talk 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article about Transformers planets. DOSGuy (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is there an article about Transfomers planets? I can't find one, and I'm not sure one is necessary, if it's being created just to absorb something from an AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And will this article have a better WP:N rationale than the single-planet articles? Will it have reliable sources? I'm not asking because I believe it doesn't, I'm just trying to stem what might be alot of unnecessary work. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my editing experience, up to half (in fact, perhaps the vast majority) of all articles on Wikipedia are about characters and locations from fictional universes. I'd prefer not to see a million articles get deleted from Wikipedia, so it's time to define what "notable" means. I support the deletion of articles that have limited or regional scope. An article is notable if its scope is international. The Transformers are popular on an international scale, and characters and locations within that universe are also likely to be of interest to a significant number of visitors from around the world. Articles that meet "notability" requirements, but have too little content to stand on their own, should be merged. Since this particular article is not a stub, it should stay. If you can't refute this argument, you really can't delete the article. DOSGuy (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:05, January 17, 2008

Premium Quality Tunes[edit]

Premium Quality Tunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Same song, verse two. Sugarland is indeed notable, but the very few references I can find to this indie album mention it only in passing if at all. Therefore, this album seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again, another real album that I have heard. Just because it may not be "notable" doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that anyone has the right to deprive people of knowing about an album.

http://www.last.fm/music/Sugarland/Premium%20Quality%20Tunes

Vala M (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with adding the track listing to the main Sugarland page is that there don't seem to be any reliable sourcess that can verify the track listing. The same holds for their other indie albums, Sugar in the Raw volumes 1 & 2. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:05, January 17, 2008

Yeshiva Darchei Torah of Toronto[edit]

Yeshiva Darchei Torah of Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's written like an advertisement, nor does it show a bit of notability. —BoL 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Poorly written and does not show a bit of notability. —BoL 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave Me in Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Don't Leave Me in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I have absolutely no doubt that Dierks Bentley himself is very notable, this independently released album of his seems to be non-notable. I can't find a single source verifying its content, songwriters, or even its label; the few mentions of it online are all trivial in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.last.fm/music/Dierks+Bentley/Don't+Leave+Me+In+Love

Vala M (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, an online radio station's site doesn't fulfill WP:RS in the least. I'm sure that the album does exist, but there aren't enough third-party sources to verify its presence. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; note that two editors did not specifically say in bold print to delete, but did say to delete, with valid rationale for it. So if you do a count to comparre to the determination of rough concensus, please take that into consideration. JERRY talk contribs 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) edit conflict... last comment left after close.[reply]

Robots in Futurama[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is a synthesis of plot elements taken from the various Futurama episodes articles. As such, this is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no reason for a redirect (see WP:REDIR). This article isn't old enough that there would be many backlinks to redirect, and nobody's going to say "I need to find out about robots in Futurama" and not type in "Futurama" (or get it with a standard search instead of a redirect on this term). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is part of the Futurama article and is only broken out due to WP:SIZE. Insisting that the article be taken in absolute isolation without the sources and notability provided by the main Futurama article is ridiculous and totally counterproductive. Torc2 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral based on List of recurring robot characters from Futurama. I think some primary-sourced background on the function of robots in the series is appropriate, but I'm not sure it needs to be separate from the other articles in the topic. Torc2 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so looking at the article in isolation from the main Futurama article is exactly what we need to do, and every article needs to meet wikipedia criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Torc2 - Assuming there are sources for such information I think it would likely serve wikipedia better as an introductory section to the "List of..." page. Explaining robots roles in general followed by the key robots of the series would make for a more meaningful article. If such a section got too long (with sourced content as opposed to what's here now) then we could revisit the idea of splitting it. As such I'd support deleting this in favor of a redirect to the List of page. Stardust8212 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. Torc2 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. While size IS a good reason to split something into its own article, there's no encyclopedic content here: It's all original research. It's observations and musings by fans, otherwise known as fancruft. Bender already has his own article, and the robots have List of recurring robot characters from Futurama. The difference is that this article isn't a character list, it's an original essay pushing its own interpretation of the show (WP:SYNTH) — TheBilly(Talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should be viewed in perspective. As an element of Futurama, it may not be noteworthy, but as a vision of Robotics, in a show were robots are heavily represented, it is notable. For illustration, robots in Star Wars, Star Treck, Superman, Mega Man and several others have their own articles. But if it must be merged, I agree that it should be with th recurring robot characters list, and not the Futurama article. F-451 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing at essays is not an argument, and neither of those is really an effective counterargument here either: F-451 isn't arguing that this is notable simply because Futurama is notable, and arguing based on precedence and consistency isn't the same as saying that we should keep this because there are articles in worse shape. Torc2 (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • F-451 hasn't presented a case for keeping the article. There is no "precedent" that supersedes WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR, all of which scream "delete" in this case. Hence WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it doesn't matter, maybe those "precedents" are well sourced, maybe they need ot be deleted. And it simply isn't noteworthy, not even as "a vision of Robotics, in a show were [sic] robots are heavily represented." That still hinges on the notability of Futurama (instead of the existence of real-world relevance/sources). Hence WP:NOTINHERITED. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, see, now you've actually made arguments based on policy rather than just regurgitating essay shortcuts. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR I can understand, which is why I switched my vote to Neutral. WP:OTHERSTUFF is bad logic from a sketchy essay, and is irrelevant to these points; you're better off just arguing based on the policies. The WP:NOTINHERITED argument doesn't work for me. That section of the essay is very wishy-washy about its own strengths, and this article seems to fall under the 'article-subarticle' example rather than the 'manufacturer-product' or 'member-organization' examples, which makes it acceptable to note the notability of the main article in considering the notabilty for the subarticle. Torc2 (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do understand that the point of essay shortcuts is that I shouldn't have to repeat what the essays say back to you, eh? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and when it isn't obvious, I provide an explanation. Apparently, it wasn't obvious, and when your comment contradicted my belief that it was obvious, I provided an explanation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are a variety of articles that are just on this topic from reliable sources. The first one I could find is [25]. (unfortunately behind a paywall). But this article judging from the free first few paragraphs and the title is all about robots in futurama and the cultural critiques that are meant by them. And I strongly suspect there are more such articles. This is thus ripe for its own topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of recurring robot characters from Futurama. Could be merged either way. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---edit conflict--- The comment below was added after the admin closing edit was started.

  • Merge per The Evil Spartan. Tavix (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feature phone[edit]

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

Seems like a neologism. Written with a tone of original resource, which is underscored by the lack of references. Mikeblas (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smartphones (ISBN 1931695504) and Newton's Telecom Dictionary (ISBN 1578203090) both tell me that this article is an utter falsehood from beginning to end. The sources say the opposite of what the article says. A "feature phone" is a 'phone with added features. It's a 'phone with more features than a standard 'phone, for whatever definition of "standard" one is using. Uncle G (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per neologism. This is not a term used in telecom. Majoreditor (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BencherliteTalk 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Ball[edit]

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

Not noteworthy. --Susiequesie (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non notable book wholesale entrepreneur, fails WP:BIO. References supplied appear to be bare listings and notices, not significant third party coverage. This article appears to be part of a walled garden also including the articles Net-90 and The Page's Edge. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after reviewing WP:BIO provided by Busy Stubber, I believe Mr Ball may not meet the Wikipedia Project criteria. I believe that The Page's Edge and Anna Currence do, however, though I believe he has also nom'd them for deletion. Although I pretty much just look stuff up on Wikipedia, and since people keep slapping my hands for editing, I'm inclined to revert back to that very casual role. And since I already know about those two, I guess I don't care if they get deleted, too. --SilyOlPooh (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Susiequesie seems to be in conflict with SilyOlPooh. I still support delete, based on this article. --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Note also the consent of the article's author, SilyOlPooh, who is the article's only substantial contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Net-90[edit]

Net-90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Net-90 invoicing is a common form of Bill of Sale in retail publishing. Nearly all general book retail in the United States is sold using Net-30, Net-45, or Net-90 invoicing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiequesie (talk • contribs)

  • That doesn't explain anything about why you want this article deleted. What's your rationale for deletion of this article, based in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article claims Mr Ball created "Net-90" as a system of business when it is not and he did not. Nothing about the article was correct, accurate, or cited (or noteworthy if the other three had been). I worked with Mr Ball and his company and nothing about his invoicing model was different than any other book reseller would have been given by the major houses, excepting possibly a more generous credit line. That's this New York lady's opinion anyway. Perhaps you will disagree. --Susiequesie (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. I hesitate to supply a rationale when none is given, but this unreferenced article does seem to be about a non-notable business method that apparently involves purchasing goods on credit and reselling them for cash. It also seems to be part of a promotional walled garden involving Rich Ball and The Page's Edge. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Already better covered by Discounts and allowances, by this logic we should have Net-15, Net-30 and Net-60 as they are more common in industry. Burzmali (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed it is better covered, as noted above. --SilyOlPooh (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to Little Red-Haired Girl Shirahadasha (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Only claim to fame is her supposed inspiration for the "little red-headed girl" in the Peanuts comic strip. She is already noted in the Charles M. Schulz article, which is appropriate since she has really not made any other notable contributions other than that. I am sure she is a nice lady and all, but notability is not inherited. She also appears in the Peanuts template, which is where I first noticed her name. Sc straker (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't see a need to remove this information altogether. Why not merge with Little Red-Haired Girl? That way, we can provide that article with some real-world information. Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Zagalejo beat me to it. Anything useful can be merged into Little Red-Haired Girl and this page redirected there. faithless (speak) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. Sounds like a great idea to me. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete There is nothing wrong with recreation if the individual can be shown to meet WP:BIO. But without non-trivial, independent, reliable sources there isn't much we can do. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew chen[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for a biographical article. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:N. No assertion of notability, clearly not notable, possible vanity article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable entrepreneur, article can be improved --Dominodojo (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Dominodojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Notable how? Notability is an affirmative claim - you need to present some evidence of notability. As it stands, I see no assertion of notability, let alone evidence to back it up. Refer to WP:BIO as necessary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as non-notable and self-promotional biography. --Lockley (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet notability criteria, though his company might. Marontia (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:03, January 17, 2008

The realm of no![edit]

The realm of no! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unverifiable, and previously deleted content. See below for more detailed explanation. g026r (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (and Salt, as per comments below) - Article originally resided at The Realm of No! (Deletion log). It was deleted under CSD:A7 twice, and was then recreated at its current location. Was marked for speedy delete following recreation, but was not deleted as A4 and A7 were deemed non-applicable in this case. My reasons are as follows:
    1. Item is not notable, being a self-published copy of a module that was submitted unsolicited to TSR and was not published, and of which less than a dozen total copies were produced by the author.
    2. Though rejection vs. being accepted and merely unpublished cannot be verified with any degree of certainty, but both Gary Gygax and David "Zeb" Cook have stated that they have not heard of the module and do not believe it would have been accepted for publication. (Gygax: [26] (Username: Col_Pladoh), Cook: [27] (Username: Zeb))
    3. References consist of message board discussions questioning what precisely the item is.
    4. Google hits for "Realm of No!" and "Kim Ryan" result in only 6 hits, of which 5 are the message board discussions -- consisting largely of people saying they've never heard of the subject of the article -- listed in the article as references.
    5. The original version of the page (since deleted) made guesses at value and contained gushing praise sourced to unnamed persons; combined with the sudden appearance of multiple accounts all with knowledge of a module of which less than a dozen copies exist, this suggested that the page was created in an attempt to increase the visibility and thereby price of an otherwise inconsequential item of no particular value. g026r (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources to verify content. A self-published module with only ten copies doesn't seem very notable, either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely reeks of hoax, and wouldn't be notable even if it were true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - not notable at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:N WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.☆ 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP AS IT IS CANON per WP:RS and WP:N Module is canon. Do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.192.32 (talk)
- 190.50.192.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And rare and worth bajmillion bucks too! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also at Die Republikaner auf Nein. I didn't add a speedy tag to that one as it has an AfD tag on it already. -- g026r (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because those titles were newly created as an end run around the AfD process, I have speedy deleted those titles because they were created disruptively. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either a hoax or a self-published module; either way, not notable enough for an article. Even if it had a credible source saying "E. Gary Gygax played it with his friends on January 6, 1982, 'for a laugh' (ref: "Very Reputable Role Playing Magazine", December 1999, p. 1d6+3)" it'd still be nonnotable. Mass publication or bust. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Pigman☿ 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah douglas[edit]

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

(Version nominated) Obvious hoax. PROD was contested by page author, who is insisting that page is not a hoax. PROD reason was: "Obivous hoax." --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3--Dacium (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian Onitiu[edit]

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

There is nothing in the article but some gibberish. Should have been speedied but for reasons foreign to me that was declined. If the editor truly wants more time to develop a useful article this will give them that time Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Looks like a chess puzzle. But I'm pretty sure that a single chess puzzle on its own won't be able to make WP:N unless sources are forthcoming. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, the article state that it's a person who makes puzzles, not a puzzle. While this certainly shows the article isn't completely clear, it doesn't mean the article shouldn't stay. Please re-vote in light of the fact that it's a person, not a puzzle. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as WP:N says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Onitiu was well known chess problem composer. --AndrejJ (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many problems with that statement. The notability needs to be asserted, and it needs to have sources. Just because you say this person is notable doesn't mean anything. Right now this article is just a chess problem with someone's name tacked on to it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not provide notability, and being a chess problemist is not any more notable than being a chess player. The structure of the article is "subject is a chess problemist" followed by a problem he made [a fairy problem incidentally, making this essentially a chess variant problem, not a chess problem.] For a chess player, that would be like "X is a chess player" and then adding a game. And you could make an article like that on me ("Sjakkalle is a chess player" followed by the game on my userpage.) Article lacks sources to illustrate non-trivial coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sorry but fairy chess problem is essentially a chess problem NOT a chess variant. And about your chess games, are they mentioned in any notably collection (like [28])?--AndrejJ (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Careful—I think some of Sjakkalle's games are in notable collections. That said, I think it's very possible that this person is a notable chess composer. Unfortunately chess problems are not my thing, so I just don't know. What the article needs is a good source or two attesting to the importance of this composer. I think Onitiu died before FIDE did much with chess composition so we won't have FIDE composition titles or medals, but if Onitiu won any other prizes for composition that could also help. There's extensive literature on chess problems. It should be possible to find something for a notable problem composer. Quale (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) — Oops, I was wrong. The link you provided suggests that Onitiu was published in the FIDE Album III 1914-1944. I consider that a suggestion of notability. Quale (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, a ChessBase is a notable game collection, but if you can have a rating of 1249 and wind up there, then having games there does not make you notable. Anyway, the evidence uncovered by Quale has made me reconsider, and I'll stay neutral on this one, while pleading my ignorance for the problem aspects of chess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability established. In particular having some problems mentioned in a notable collection does not make you automatically notable, as having a chess game in the very notable MegaDatabase (from Chessbase) does not make you notable. SyG (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: IMO having ten problems in selection which consist 806 selected chess problems (FIDE 1914/1944-III contains fairy and retro problems together with chess studies; actually Onitiu contribute 10 out of 145 problems in group of fairy chess without selfmates and helpmates) is for chess composer good enough. For comparison: ten or more problems in this album also have the composers as: Vladimir Bron, Thomas R. Dawson, Charles Fox, Aleksandr Gerbstman, Nikolai Grigorjev, dr. Niels Høeg, Genrih Kasparjan, Leonid Kubbel, Artur Mandler, Herman Mattison, Wolfgang Pauly, Richard Reti, Henri Rinck and Aleksej Troicki. There is a problem with missing biographical facts (which is not accessible online) but I'm certain than Onitiu deserve his article.--AndrejJ (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please allow me to put my comparison with chess games further: having 10 games published in a Chess Informant would not be a sufficient proof of validity to me. I understand the FIDE albums contain more than 17000 problems (!!) so having 10 of them by an author does not seem like a lot to me. Of course, I am not basing all my judgment on "number of problems", but on this single and subjective aspect (FIDE albums) this composer does not seem notable to me. SyG (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As was told before: Onitiu died in 1948, so mentioning 17.000 problems is absolutely irrelevant.--AndrejJ (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The FIDE Album III containing some of Onitiu's work seems to have been published in 1975 ([29])—27 years after Onitiu's death in 1948. The whole bit about 17000 problems seems to me to be a rather unfair argument (I hope not deliberately, but Andrejj explained the numbers pretty clearly) since that covers 50 years of composition done when Onitiu was dead. In fact only three FIDE albums cover the period up to 1945 and they total only about 2800 problems. If you look at the publishing history of the FIDE Albums, for the years before 1945 FIDE albums contain only about 100 problems for each year. After 1945 the albums include about 200–350 problems a year. What this suggests to me is that it is helpful to have the assistance of someone with expertise in chess composition to determine the worth of this article. I don't have that expertise. Quale (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK let me explain what I mean. If we assume the FIDE albums give a view on the full range and history of chess composition (which is already a sub-part of chess in general), we could consider that Valerian Onitiu represents 10/17000 = 0.06% of chess composition. Clearly this reasoning is very limited as the FIDE albums may have a bias towards present. On the other hand, reasoning like "he is the most notable romanian chess problemist born in April 1872 and dead in December 1948" may be seen as just the same unfairness, i.e. reasoning on a subset too limited. Going that far, we could say something like "he has 10 problems on the 12 problems set up in page 42 of the 3rd FIDE albums, so he is exceptionnally notable". To sum up it all, I tend to think that restricting the set to make it look more notable is not fully appropriate here. SyG (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Quale is correct that a chess expert is needed. I wanted to elaborate on reviewing chess players for my sister. I gathered the information, their problems, their specialties, their games with other ranked opponents. She made the decissions about whether to accept a match or not. It was not always clear cut which players were the best known to me. Sometimes, discussing chess with her and other players, they might not know a name, but would know a single problem--and they all, even if they had not heard of the problem, could recognize the importance of a particular problem just from the problem. I never got to that level. Once a name is attached to a spectacular problem in chess, the player himself becomes very notable, it seems. From the FIDE it seems, imo, that he's notable if he has a single notable problem, which appears to be the case for Onitiu. Romanian chess players may be written up in the Russian literature on chess, also. I'm not sure if SyG is saying don't restrict the set of possible ways of being notable, or restricting Onitiu's set to make him appear more notable is the problem, but I think Quale has a good point with this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what I found online, his problems are still very much actual and reproduced on many websites. I think that qualifies for The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field., considering his most active years were 1920-1930. I added two references, one is from the 2005 Encyclopædia Universalis France S.A., which is a product of the Brittanica encyclopediae. Obviously the article needs improvement. It is easy to find his chess problems (we even have one of his problems at Grasshopper!), much harder to find information on the person. Voorlandt (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Unless he has a single problem that has its own sources. His total FIDE album points are only 9.75, which means he's not even a FIDE Master Chess problem#Titles. Are even all International Grandmasters considered noteworthy for Wikipedia, much less problemists who are not Masters? It does not seem that without additional sources about his best known chess problem that Onitiu is notable within the definitions of notability on Wikipedia. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unless he has a single problem that has its own sources.--see the reference of the 2005 Encyclopædia Universalis. Voorlandt (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The titles were established in 1959 and he died in 1948. I don't think FIDE awards any titles posthumously, so I don't think that specific complaint is valid. Quale (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment His FIDE album points are only 9.75, true but Loyd or Dudeney both have zero points, even Dawson has only 23.92 points. FIDE albums became important after World War II - in 1960. was first album published.--AndrejJ (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this is correct, that he's an earlier preblemist and FIDE titles came later. But the FIDE album is a major source to establish his notability, so the points should be looked at. Standing alone, his points aren't that high. What is needed, imo, is a respectable reference that gives usable material from the one problem. A single spectacular chess problem can, imo, make notability. It certainly can carry heavy weight in the world of chess. I don't have the needed expertise, my sister is an outsider chess player, so just some familiarity. Still, although FIDE albums show a seriously ranked best of the best of chess, there are many players with points and problems who aren't that notable. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When nominated the article did not make any claims of notability, and it still needs work. My reasons to urge that it is kept: 1) I don't think many people with much interest in chess problems have expressed an opinion here, but the ones who have seem to think keep is appropriate. Sometimes great affection for a subject can lead to a desire to keep marginal articles, but I think often some expertise is required to make the best judgment. Unfortunately I have little knowledge of or interest in chess problems myself, so I don't have that expertise. I have to rely on others and try to correctly weigh other factors. We have many passionate advocates for video games on Wikipedia, but not very many chess problem enthusiasts it seems. I don't think that is in proportion to the relative encyclopedic value of these topics. 2) The chess problem given as an example in the article is a collaboration with Petrović, Dawson & Fox, three other composers with articles. Although notable collaborators is not sufficient proof of notability, it is evidence that suggests notability. (It is of course possible that Dawson and perhaps the others merely acted in an editorial capacity, perhaps to repair a cook.) 3) Onitiu has an entry in Jeremy Gaige's Chess Personalia. This is the standard English-language work on chess biographical details (birth and death dates and places). While not every person with an entry in Gaige should have an article on Wikipedia, it is indicative that a person is notable in the world of chess. It is not an indiscriminate collection of biographical data, but a careful selection. Gaige describes the criteria he used for inclusion and for chess problemists says he relied heavily on Henri Weenink's The Chess Problem. I think this is considered a standard work on the history of chess composition. 4) It seems that a number of Onitiu's compositions have been collected in FIDE Albums. These collections are chosen to demonstrate the best work in chess problems. It is important to keep in mind that FIDE Albums were not introduced until long after Onitiu was dead, and their coverage of problems in his time is far from complete. This makes his selection more noteworthy. 5) Gaige says that there's info on Onitiu in what appears to be a Romanian-language chess encyclopedia or dictionary. (I added it to Valerian Onitiu#Further reading.) If I had an English-language chess encyclopedia with an entry for Onitiu I would easily !vote strong keep. And related to this, 6) I am concerned about systemic bias because of the possibility that the best sources of information on Onitiu are not in English. A Romanian chess composer can be every bit as notable as a Russian or a Briton, even if it's harder to find English language sources. Quale (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true that there are many sources in chess in languages besides English. Please find some and include them. I don't think Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. --Amaltheus (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of these supposed sources of notability don't mean much of anything if they aren't actually cited in the article (and they are not) and support a claim of notability within the article (which also doesn't seem to exist). Maybe then it would be different but there could still be some verifiability issues with the sources.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Connelly (historian)[edit]

Mark Connelly (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Written a couple of books, not much else, doesn't really meet notability for academics. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unless these books are highly-regarded, widely-cited, or otherwise notable, he fails WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick Google Books search will show that each of his books is used as a source in other works: [30], [31], [32]. So far, I've found one actual review [33], though I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one other review out there somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here are three other reviews: [34], [35], [36]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with the standards in his field of study, but I'm not sure that qualifies as widely cited or highly regarded. I've changed my vote to weak, pending the existence of possible improvements to the article that firmly establish notability per WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is making that assertion. Please try to provide a "keep" rationale that includes a reason, not a sarcastic exaggeration. It will help your case, if you want the article to be kept (as would improving the article itself, if possible). --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point, which despite my 'exaggeration' you appear to have missed entirely, is that dismissing a historian and writer because he's an academic who has 'written a couple of books' is rather strange. There are several sources giving third party reviews of his work and that is usually taken as proof of notability. I might note that you are, theoretically at least, as capable of searching for sources or improving this article as anybody else is. I did add some of the sources found by Zagalejo to the article at the time of my first comment by the way, but you were possibly too busy writing that note suggesting I add some sources to the article to notice. Nick mallory (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF much? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is now not merely Reader in History at Kent, but Professor--which is head of the department and the most prestigious post in the university in the subject. Besides working in military history, he is Reuters Lecturer in Media History there. (I recall this is the UK academic pattern, where there is only one professor.) The books and the reviews support this. His peers regard him as notable, and they are the ones to decide: notability is within the profession. We don't decide who's a good ball-player, and we don't decide who's a good historian. The baseball teams decide, and the universities. We just record it. I found the up-to-date website, and added his other books.- There are actually nine of them, the most recent by Oxford University Press. In my experience, many pages on academics are done very carelessly, and it is worth looking for up-to-date information. I can sympathize with Nick's impatience. DGG (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I've changed my vote based on what DGG just said and the improvements made to the article (but no thanks to the rude response by Nick mallory). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professorship and publications confer sufficient notability per WP:PROF ("the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor") Skomorokh incite 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PROF, and he seems ntable due to the volume of publications. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.☆ 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelbots[edit]

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

Unreferenced, bordering on Patent nonsense, seem to be WP:MADEUP VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google only has two hits for rebelbots Utah. Pburka (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I am planning to add more references and information shortly. Coah (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (MST)
  • Neutral for now. Looks like a violation of WP:MADEUP, but I'd like ot give Coah a chance to work on it a little. Will check back in a few days. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete. The article is unreferenced, orphaned, and has no links to other articles. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided then I'm going to have to go with it's made up. Oysterguitarist 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - recreation would be fine, as long as what's created isn't completely unsourced nonsense that looks pretty darn made-up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Deb (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge with Equipment of the Batmobile. JERRY talk contribs 03:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batmissile[edit]

Batmissile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nomination- The article is about a non-notable aspect of the batmobile, that only appears in a few secondes of Batman Returns film. In addition, the information is a reduplication of what can be found on the Equipment of the Batmobile. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Move to userspace - apparently created in mainspace by mistake (non-admin closure). —Travistalk 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although there are many references, I find this article an original research essay. The fact that there are many good references doesn't mean it is not OR, but it does seem to go against WP:SYN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hess[edit]

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

Delete - Only one outside source, sherdog.com (a special-interest MMA website). Several sources only mention Hess in passing. While the article makes assertions of notability, I don't know that they are valid (e.g. "co-founder of the Scientific Aggressive Fighting Technology of America, or S.A.F.T.A." doesn't seem notable). Most importantly, Hess has virtually no notable fighting experience (1:32 - that's minutes:seconds). The article also suffers from serious WP:V/WP:BLP issues, plus COI problems (Hess himself has edited the article). Cheeser1 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Err that's not all his experience, just his professional record, implying it is, is unfair, competitors had to have some background to get into the tournament. Sherdog articles are reasonable sources, the forums aren't in a similar manner to stash dot. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdot is not the only forum that isn't a reliable source, but I never insinuated that Sherdog was unreliable, only that it was a very detailed, special-interest MMA site, and even so, barely contains anything that could give Hess notability (several articles cited are not about Hess). Also, it's obvious that I'm talking about his professional record - that's the notable part. That's like saying "it's not fair, Failed Olympian #247 may have only competed in 2 seconds of the Olympics, but they played alot of water polo in their childhood." You have to argue for notability, not against non-notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I never said forums were reliable, I explicitly said there were to parts to the site one of which was reliable. I don't see the problem with sourcing from independent special interest sites, the presence dosen't argue for notability, the reported content does. The longest match at UFC 5 (ignoring the superfight) was less than 5 minuets, 1:32 isn't that short on screen time was probably 5 times that. In addition what happened in that time is relevent, a controversial possible foul, say Olympian #247 had punched an opponent which is why he was only on for that time? Next point this is a straw man to go to the extremes of saying 2 seconds, and talking about childhood sport, Hess wouldn't have been there if he didn't have some record of amateur or pro-fights in another sport (there had been a total of 4 pro MMA competitions in the US at this point!), implying he walked in off the street to fight is wrong. I wasn't arguing against non-notability but against a biased presentation of the facts. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of this changes the fact that the subject of this article is not the subject of multiple reliable independent sources. That's the gold standard of WP:N. Sherdog.com is the only source cited relevant to Hess, and the two pages cited sure don't give me the impression that Hess is notable. See my comment below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage from independent reliable sources, hence no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article were about Jon Hess the film director it would be a keep, but alas it's not. Pburka (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've reconsidered. If he were a NFL player who'd played one game or a driver who'd competed in one Indy 500 I'd say keep, as per WP:BIO. So 90 seconds in UFC should probably be treated accordingly. Not a fan, but it seems to be at least as legitimate as professional boxing. Pburka (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much notability, along with above reasons. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Competitor in one of the first 5 UFC (the ones still based on tournament format with Royce took part in) Needs improved sourcing, I have a book that should help,(ISBN 0806526572, link) but will need to have a look at it for exact ref & can't do that from work. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hess is notable for being one of the first UFC competitors, and part of the history of MMA. Sherdog itself is a reliable source, though the Sherdog forums are not. I agree that the article has major PoV issues, but those can be corrected. EmperorFedor (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both great reasons to mention him in the articles UFC and MMA. But his notability, in his own right, has to be established. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 09:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - as it currently is, the article is of unacceptably low quality. It might be salvageable, but if no-one does the job by the deadline of this AfD, it might as well be removed. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That doesn't seem like a good idea. Many people, myself included, would be interested in cleanup on an article such as this, but won't put time and energy into it only to see the work on improving the article ignored and the deletion meet consensus. If the article can be cleaned up to acceptable standard, it should not be deleted. The proper thing (in my opinion) is to vote Keep, and renominate if no progress has been made in a few months, on the theory that maybe it can't be cleaned up after all. gnfnrf (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment: this is why I stated neutral - the article deserves a chance, but it has been on the project for 10 months and this is all we have. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As it stands, the subject clearly passes the Athletics criteria in WP:BIO. Countless articles have a strongly formed consensus in a variety of sports that ANY experience in the top professional events (NBA, MLB, etc) automatically confers notability. Hundreds of articles on baseball players exist based solely on their entries in statblocks, with no other sources. This subject, on the other hand, has sources documenting his fights (of which there are many) and a feature article from a prominent industry reliable news source about the subject. Now, I know that the argument above is not well received at AFD, but hear me out. I am not saying that because some articles on baseball players exist that an article on Jon Hess should exist. I am saying that, because a consensus formed around other sports articles to include with any "fully professional" experience, that that consensus should apply to all sports. The feature article is just a bonus. Now, why a weak keep? Because I personally don't agree with that consensus. I think that many baseball players who are just a line of statistics should not have articles. I also think that, if any UFC veterans do not warrant articles, Jon Hess is near the top of the list. But, the consensus as I see it doesn't say that, and I try to accept longstanding consensus.gnfnrf (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no offense to the MMA fans who edit Wikipedia and will likely see this AfD, but the UFC is not on the same level as MLB, the NBA, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That point aside, WP:BIO just says "fully professional," which is hard to dispute about the UFC. gnfnrf (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, these are guidelines. 1:32 of time in a non-mainstream sport, for a person who is otherwise unremarkable - I don't think this qualifies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About average at the time, and you saying he is less notable to wining quickly? He broke his hand or could potential have doubled it or more. The critical difference is your comparing it to fixed period sports, modern MMA only lasts 15 minuets maximum (for a normal fight), short compared to a football or basketball game. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's one minute, thirty two sections cumulative. All of his fights. Ever. Added up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Subject passes notability criteria for MMA. --Mista-X (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are you referring to some specific, community-accepted criteria for MMA? If so, please direct us to these criteria. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been pointed out by others. --Mista-X (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Generally, when expressing an opinion of keep, delete, merge, etc, based only on someone else's previous statements, we say "keep per User X." That way, it is understood that you are not introducing a new rationale (as I mistakenly thought you were). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to "keep" voters referring to WP:BIO. All of you are citing the following passage under "Athletes" that reads:
  • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports...
and I was well aware of that policy, but you seemed to have (perhaps unintentionally) selectively read that passage. In its entirety, it actually also states:
  • ...(who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
and that's why this article is still subject to deletion, even if he has technically competed in a professional sport. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments referring to MLB, the NFL, etc. don't seem to carry weight when someone who plays 2 minutes in the NBA might still be the subject of multiple reliable independent sources, whereas Hess is not, and that should be the only article in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
???? It's not selective reading. He competed professionally, not as an amateur. The first bullet point, which is being cited, does not have such a parenthetical notation. I also note that wp:bio only requires multiple sources if the coverage is not substantial, and I believe that the Sherdog feature article which discusses Jon Hess's career and aspirations in depth meets all the criteria given in the first sentence after the lead. It is published, secondary, reliable, and intellectually independent. If you are stuck on multiple, even though it is not required, it is trivial to change the sherdog reference of his record to his Full Contact Fighter profile (here http://fcfighter.brinkster.net/fighter.asp?FighterID=8403). I don't think it is necessary, however, since bio does not actually ask for multiple sourcing unless the source is not substantial. gnfnrf (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I misread this point. However, articles still require reliable sources and non-trivial coverage, and I still believe that you would be hard-pressed to find coverage that truly demonstrates that this person is notable in any way (the same profile that appears on a handful of MMA sites, who list the record of all fighters ever - that's not substantial coverage, you might as well start citing baseball cards in baseball articles). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BIO, regarding athlete-specific guidelines: meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The substantial coverage is not the profile. The substantial coverage is the sherdog article, cited in the wp article. This one here. http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=2416 I just don't understand how this doesn't meet the reliable and nontrivial requirements. I also point out that many baseball articles which have a consensus against deletion (I've seen the AfDs) have nothing more than baseball card style information. gnfnrf (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the substantial coverage comes from a single source, which was my point. All other sources provide trivial coverage (trivial coverage that is repeated in Sherdog anyway). Switching one trivial source to another does not change that there is only a single source of any substantial coverage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Travis[edit]

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor director and actor. She directed two non-notable films and has had a number of small roles on television shows. Of the films she has appeared in, only the unreleased Dead Air has a Wikipedia article. The film’s website does not list her in the credits of the film, and IMDB list her as playing Screaming Hottie.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice (for recreation or undeletion). I don't see anything here that asserts notability except "award winning" - but there is no such award. Sources are quite sketchy - even the reliable ones don't establish much notability. In fact, I'll just run through them one-by-one:
  1. Unspecified NPR source, substantiating a minor quotation
  2. The daily program of the Cannes festival - not a publication with real editorial review, and it's only substantiating a meaningless nickname
  3. Her résumé. Yeah right.
  4. LA Times review of a theatre show she was "credited" on. Speaks little to her notability.
  5. listal.com - not a reliable source, I'd say
  6. The listing of a DVD at a foreign-language DVD directory/store (I can't figure it out)
  7. An obituary of a friend of hers
  8. This isn't a source, actually, it's just the date of one of her television appearances.
Based on all of this, I'm going to say that there is no real assertion of notability, and that she isn't notable. IMDB confirms this - she has no really important looking roles. If some third party source is published or found to establish notability, the article should be recreated - otherwise though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
I couldn't find evidence that she had a significant role in even a single notable film. Since her credits as listed in the article include so many minor items it is hard to filter out what might be important. Her lack of mention in the web-findable credit list for Dead Air makes it difficult to consider that one seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per Cheeser1. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys for Christ[edit]

Cowboys for Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails the future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The movie is listed on IMDB, but until it starts shooting, WP:NFF stands. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. It is a sequel to an important film and is scheduled to start shooting in March (according to IMDB). However it does fail the guidelines, as the nominator noted. Pburka (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. I've modified the article so that it's now about Hardy's novel of the same name, with a section devoted to the upcoming film. Once the film is released we can go about disambiguating the two. Pburka (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Pburka, I have to reluctantly say it doesn't currently meet the guidelines. Pigman☿ 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't currently meet the guidelines. --Ubardak (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFF, until it has started shooting then delete. Oysterguitarist 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others, but no prejudice against recreation if the project enters production. With the writers' strike and all, a lot of projects are up in the air these days (more than usual). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:02, January 17, 2008

Arnold Murray[edit]

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

BLP of a person of very marginal notability; even the pre-stub version didn't do too well to assert notability other than being a midday televangelist on some unnamed stations. Will (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion is to delete it because the article attracts too many hotheads and loyalists that change it and make it very POV. It should not be deleted for the reason of marginal notability, if you use that reason then there are many, many articles that should be deleted. Examples are other tele-evangelists, there is an article for each cast member of the show hi-5, a show that is less notable than arnold murray, there is an article on ray wilkerson who worked at a tv station in north carolina, and the list goes on.65.87.185.73 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accorrding to that logic we should delete every controversial article on wikipedia. I'm not sure if you've looked at the George W. Bush article, but that attracts more than its fare share of hotheads, loyalists, and vandals. If you look at the edit history you will notice there are usually at least 5 vandalism reverts and additions per day. The Bush article isn't the only one, a list of controversial articles can be found here. The article just needs to be watched to ensure that POV doesn't get pushed. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
  • WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT - There are millions of non-notable preachers, only notable ones should be mentioned. There is no such thing as "marginal notability." Something either is notable or it isn't.
  • WP:RS and WP:V - There are no reliable sources and references.
  • WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE - This article seemed to have been created to support this man's religious beliefs.
  • WP:NOTABILITY from wikipedia, 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice" '. There are many articles on this site of people far less notable then AM. If that reason is used then many articles need deletion. It is being unfairly applied here.
  • WP:NOT from wikipedia, 'Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover'. That is a reason to keep the article, not delete it.
  • WP:RS from wikipedia, 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. The article had reliable and unreliable sources but information was deleted based on whether it was negative.
  • WP:V from wikipedia, '"Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source'. The article has verfiable sources and would need to be cut down to include those items only.
  • WP:FRINGE from wikipedia, 'We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view'. This does not apply here.
  • WP:NPOV from wikipedia, 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources'. The is does not apply, the issue is not conflicting verfiable sources, the issue is information is deleted by sanitizing teams.Tss8071 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP - The arguments above especially apply in this case.
However, anonymous user above: "the article attracts too many hotheads and loyalists" appears to be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See appeal to consequences and slippery slope. Zenwhat (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is the only reason that could apply. WP:BLP says the article should be written to do no harm. AM wants certain things in his background hidden and when they are included in the article, well sourced, sanitizing teams delete it.Tss8071 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel things should be done for the right reason and a team of people sanatizing the AM article makes the article worthless. Admins were already involved, another, more experienced person worked on it to wiki-fy it more and when he was done, the information was deleted again. The same team deleted the article on 'roy gillaspie' down to one sentence because he is mentioned on AM's website.
The only way notability can work into this is to ask if it is worth it? For an article on George Bush or Albert Einstein, you sort of have to keep those to be considered legitimate but for arnold murray, once a team has been assigned to sanitize negative information, it is probably not worth using up the disk space. The article only becomes misleading and fairly worthless.
You wrote that the article was written to support one person's religious beliefs. That is not true. The article was written a long time ago (years) and has gone back and forth from very negative and unsourced claims to reading like an advertisement. When the article got to some reasonable state, the sanatizing teams came through and wiped out all negative info and did the same with any articles pointed to by the AM article.Tss8071 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above and others keep referring to one person's beliefs. The article had many contributors over a period of a year. However, there seems to be a team of people whose job it is to go through and sanitize any negative information about arnold murray. That is why the article should be deleted.
Their original claim was the sources were a fabrication to smear arnold murray. When the information was sourced and verified, they deleted it anyway.
If it is going to be deleted then do it for the right reason.
My vote is delete it because when these teams of people are done sanatizing the article is essentially worthless.Tss8071 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that a substantial amount of commentary by this user has been moved to the talk page for this discussion, because the commentary is more about Wikipedia in general and does not make germane points about the article in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that that, based on the history of Arnold Murray, it is abundantly clear that this user is the same as User:65.87.185.73, who has already !voted. Both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry, harassment, and vandalism. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please keep your comments brief or at least well-organized. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by Will and Zenwhat. Articles that are targets of vandalism should not be deleted because they are vandal-bait, if that policy was adopted the vandals would control Wikipedia. However, the notability of this person is in question, we can't have a vanity page about every pastor in the US. -- Atamachat 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and write a proper article--not the spammy version or the sanitized one. To delete an article because it is under attack is wrong altogether. I don't want to judge notability until l see what sources can be found by neutral editors. Given the sort of thing he seems to say, probably people have written about it. (And let other people comment as they choose here with criticizing them if they take a little more space to do it than I would.)DGG (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a version of the article you had in mind, that fits WP:BIO or at least contains a germane RS? I don't think there are any reliable sources that confer notability, I flipped through the history and didn't see much that puts this guy into WP:BIO territory. If there's something I missed, can you link to it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are versions that fit WP:BIO but one would have to go way back in the history. Because the article is vandal-bait (good word to describe it, btw), the history has been inflated and I doubt anyone could find the proper article.Tss8071 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there is any good prior version: that does not mean we cannot make one. DGG (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but notability is an affirmative claim. "Maybe he's not non-notable" isn't a valid keep rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NN person. Tavix (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be deleted. I kept trying to remember this guy's name and I finally figured it out. Good old Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.226.249 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 66.16.226.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)~[reply]
  • Delete - The controversy surrounding the editing of this article is unfortunate; but this article does not meet WP:BIO and does not seem to have the potential to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I would like to open a more in depth discussion by first pointing out that I have now read the entire history of this article. My summary (without comment on the status of the article) is available on the talk page for this discussion.

Essentially, there are two problems with this article. The notability of this figure has never been established by reliable sources - the sources used in the article tend to have little or nothing to do with Murray, or have no weight in establishing his notability (e.g. his birth records). Secondly, the content of this article has never been encyclopedic - long unverified sections detailing his life, screenful after screenful of his teachings (expounded at length), etc. I can honestly say that of all the content that has ever existed in this article, the stub we have no reflects most (if not all) of what's been included previously that has been encyclopedic, verified, and relevant. For example, this version of the article contains most of the content that's ever been included. Look at it, and consider how much of it is relevant to Wikipedia (pay attention to how much of it is sourced properly, as well as how much of it is significant or worth mentioning). The external links do not establish notability, and many fail WP:EL flat out. As for the sources, I'll duplicate the list from the talk page here:

NASA website
Used to talk about the "missing day" - no mention of Murray
Shepherd's Chapel is registered as a non-profit under the "Soldiers of the Cross" name...
A public record indicating nonprofit status of something related to Murray Does not establish notability in any way.
County Data
similar public records verifying minutia about organisations affiliated with Murray
The Chosin Few
self-published, fails WP:RS flat out, and it's not about Murray
[37] / Kaplan, Jeffrey (2000). Encyclopedia of White Power- A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. Rowman Altamira, 120. ISBN 0742503402.
used only to verify that someone mentioned in passing in the article was, verfiably, a white supremacist
Barkun, Michael (1997). Religion and the Racist Right- The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. UNC Press, 54. ISBN 0807846384.
ditto
[38] / Image:Arnold murray ministers license.jpg
public recored used in conjunction with the two sources above to speak to minutia about Murray's connections to white power movements (gross violation of BLP and WP:SYN)
a list of audio tapes he has produced can be found in the Wilcox Collection of the University of Kansas.KU Library Catalog (Search for "Arnold Murray")
tapes don't appear to be published, primary sources do not necessarily establish notability, is this even the same Arnold Murray? The tape is called "Let Me Call You Sweetheart."

Based on that, I see absolutely no evidence that this article was, is, or every will be something that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, that's what I've been trying to say all along, but you put it much better than I did. Anyway, if this article is going to be used as a platform to smear Murray, then it should be deleted, unless the Mods can manage to keep it in an encyclopedia format, free of someone's personal agenda. Arnold Murray is a notable figure, he has over a million of viewers and listeners, so I believe this article should remain visible in the proper format. 208.127.154.159 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, have you contributed to this discussion before? I do not see contributions from you in this discussion, so I'm not sure I can figure out where you've been "saying [anything] all along." Wait, I just checked the history of the page - you're the one who'd been removing the lengthy unsourced content and original research (e.g. here). While that content should be removed, and this article (as far as I can tell) should be deleted entirely, I don't think your rationale is correct - it is not in agreement with mine or what I just said. Articles that are "smear platforms" should be fixed, not deleted. However, we have a much better reason to delete this: WP:BIO, the community accepted marker for notability. If he has been noted in reliable, third-party sources for having a large audience, then that may help the case to keep the article, but I can't find any evidence (reliable sources or otherwise) stating that he has any particularly large number of listeners. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly the problem, 'he has a million viewers'. That can not be reliably sourced and only makes the article vandal-bait.Tss8071 (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm for deleting it. Better than having an article riddled with labels like "white supremacist" this and that, when the man is clearly an anti-racist. But In terms of viewership and listeners on the radio, that can be checked out through ratings. 208.127.154.159 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a reliable source for the ratings 208.127.154.159 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by other user, WP:BIO says,:
'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.'
AM has none of that, there are no published third party sources where he has been the subject.Tss8071 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Verifiable information, good, bad or indifferent, speaks for itself. My apologies in advance for the length of this post!

  • WP:BLP - I believe this article can be re-written to conform to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Details about other notable associates (e.g. Goff, Allen, etc.) can be addressed in separate articles.
  • WP:V "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" (e.g. Murray's claim that he is a member of the Chosin Few posted on his website). For example, in the Wikipedia entry on Kenneth Copeland, the following quote points to Kenneth Copeland's website: "According to Kenneth Copeland Ministries, it is also actively involved in ministry to prison inmates in 23 countries."[39]
  • WP:N - Notability is subjective. I believe Murray satisfies the criteria of notability based on the following:
  • According to Back Chanel Media, [40], a free web-based media search engine that is one of the largest dynamically generated TV listings databases, Shepherd's Chapel is broadcast in approximately 389 media platforms [41] which includes 9 of the top 10 Designated Market Areas (DMA) with the exception of New York city. I couldn't find any ratings on the site but they do list the number of households in the top 10 DMAs which totals approximately 35,000,000.
  • To try to gain some perspective on this data, I'll use the Kenneth Copeland example again. According to Back Channel Media, Copland's show, Believer's Voice of Victory, is on the air an average of 400 30-minute blocks each week. [42] Shepherd's Chapel is on the air an average of 900 30-minute blocks each week. [43]
  • The Shepherd's Chapel website receives an average of 900,000 unique visitors each week according to Alexa.org [44]
  • Articles about Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel have been published by the Associated Press, U.S.A. Today and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette among others. Transcripts of these articles can be found by searching databases like Lexis Nexis, NetLibrary.org and the USA Today Archives. Some examples include...
  • "$50,000 gift answers need of Bible class" John Rice, Gazette Staff, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, (Little Rock, AR), Sunday, February 18, 1990
  • "GRAVETTE - Rev. Arnold Murray says he raised $20,000 through documentary on National Christian Network to help school district fight lawsuit challenging voluntary weekly Bible classes at elementary schools..." USA Today, section: News, pg. 08.A, August 22, 1989
  • "BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) - Vehicles used exclusively for church business, even airplanes, cannot be taxed by the county, a Benton County judge says." Associated Press, Friday, October 28, 1994
  • Murray/Shepherd's Chapel is mentioned in two books:
  • In the book The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults, Shepherd's Chapel is listed as a "Christian Identity" group. pg. 325, Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, New York Rosen Publishing Group, 1997. ISBN 0823925862
  • Murray is mentioned in Loretta Lynn's memoir, Still Woman Enough: "I want to thank Pastor Murray for his friendship and, most specifically, for his love and support." Hyperion Books (April 3, 2002) ISBN 0786866500
  • According to published reports - Murray was in a relationship with Loretta Lynn:
  • "Widow Loretta Lynn is back in the arms of the preacher she once loved and lost" written by Laurie Campbell, The National Examiner May 1,2006.
  • "SINGER'S NAZI LOVE: WIDOWED country singer Loretta Lynn is planning to marry a neo-Nazi TV preacher." The Sunday Mail, pg 18, December 9, 1999 (published in the UK)
  • In my opinion, the Murray "gun video" falls in the category of an "Internet meme" and should be considered a viral video/Internet phenomena due to its online popularity. The video is noted on the Wikipedia page for "God Stuff" which was a segment on The Daily Show.
  • Lastly, Newsletters written by Murray when he was the pastor of Church of Jesus Christ (Gravette, Ark.) are archived at the Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements. (Call Number: RH WL Eph 639) 1978.

Just my two cents! Fulldisclosure07 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Fulldisclosure07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You've missed it. You're citing:
  1. a self-published, unreliable website
  2. alexa ratings of Murray's church's website
  3. two tabloid newspapers
  4. archives of self-published newsletters written by Murray
  5. youtube memes
  6. the dedication page of a book
None of those are remotely reliable or Wikipedia-worty (okay, alexa is semi-reliable, but irrelevant). Beyond that, you cite an encyclopedia of sects and cults in which there's a mention of his church. The scope of Wikipedia is not so narrow, and this is not an article about his cult church, it's an article about him. Besides that single reliable source, you're citing are random minor news reports about church fundraisers and minor court decisions. No source here meets WP:RS except those that are insubstantial coverage of news events (Wikipedia is not a newspaper). You say that you can meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS, but none of this does so. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a subtle attack article. Aside from the fact that the article's creator on the article's talk page, and indeed the article itself, tell us outright that this is unverifiable, it's pretty obvious that this is an attack piece directed at someone with this name by xyr acquaintainces. The pretense that it's a "term" is so flimsy that it falls apart. Uncle G (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Webb[edit]

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

WP:NFT Will (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne (character)[edit]

Max Payne (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Not a notable subject. Article seems to be a mere plot summary instead of an out-of-universe encyclopedic entry. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 06:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a word-for-word copy of the plot sections of the 2 games, so everything in this article is already covered in the articles on the two games in the series. TJ Spyke 09:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of real world information and the article being simply a retelling of the plot (which is covered in the game articles), and concerns I wrote on the article talk page months ago. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's the main character in the games so its not as if those articles lack information on him. Hard to see how this would ever be more than duplicative of the other articles. Xymmax (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:WAF.If reliable secondary sources can be found, it might still be worth deleting this article and starting from scratch. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the game he came from. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable outside the two games that bear his name. The article consists of little more than giant plot summaries of those two games, so there is little to no content worth merging into the game articles. I don't think a redirect is necessary, it's unlikely anyone will search with (character) and Max Payne will take them to the game. Bleeding Blue 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just use the game's article; where is the separate notability for the char.? JJL (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game article has more than enough necessary information, especially given as the character appears in no other media and is the focus of the game. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_10&oldid=1116721473"