Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 8 November 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Trask II

edit
William Trask II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Incomplete nomination by User:Oh Snap (his rationale below). Pascal.Tesson 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul Soccer Club

edit
Kabul Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer club. I initially put a db-nn tag on it, because it's utterly non-notable, but it's been here since 2004, so I decided to afd it. Corvus cornix 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. RMHED 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the longest running soccer club for exiled Afghans in the U.S. It was formed and continues to be advanced by members of the old Afghan team AND has taken an important role in building a U.S.-Afghan cultural bridge. Kingturtle 03:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big deal. It has no notability, any more than the longest running soccer club for exiled Brits, exiled Frenchmen, exiled Japanese, or exiled Belizeans. And where is the longest running baseball club for exiled Americans in the United Kingdom? Corvus cornix 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to miss the fact that Afghanistan has been a country in major upheaval for almost 40 years. Their refugee issues are severe, a sort of diaspora. Organizations like this Kabul Soccer Club play an important role in maintaining trying to put Afghanistan back together again. Please don't mock this situation by trying to claim that there are any major numbers of exiled Brits or Belizeans. The verb exile means "to banish or expel from one's own country or home." A refugee is "a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution." Just to be clear. Kingturtle 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although, if kingturtle can cite the information he mentions here, I might be persuaded to change to keep.Balloonman 06:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The information was taken from news-wires in 2004. Access to these stories are not available online without a fee. Anyone out there have access to 2004 news-wire archives? Kingturtle 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found an article published by the Oakland Tribune[1], which pretty much confirms most of what is written in the article and confirms notability in my view. Note that the names of the individual clubs have changed, the one in Concord is now called Afghan United Soccer Club and the LA team is called Ariana Soccer Club, so searches under these names may produce more sources. --Malcolmxl5 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not buying it... one source doesn't equate to notabilityBalloonman 06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article below about List of ex-pat Afghan football clubs around the world. An article about all the clubs would be notable, but any single one is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if this club might fail the notability criteria of football clubs on WP:WPF, I think this article in some way goes beyond the scope of WP:WPF and that there might be other considerations to take into account here. Perhaps there are social, political or cultural factors that make it notable (the article is at least hinting something simmilar), and since I don´t feel qualified to make those kind of judgments, I want to give other people the chance to make them. Tryin to judge the football merits, I am not an expert on Afghan football but I'm guessing the Afghani league is experiencing somewhat of a down-turn at the moment (even if there seem to be a league made up of Kabul teams). Since Afghan football clearly is within the scope of WP:WPF, perhaps this is one of the most important "Afghan" clubs? It should also be noted that the List of ex-pat Afghan football clubs around the world is currently nominated for deletion, so a "merge" may mean a "delete". Sebisthlm 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people are all equal to me, so saying they are notable because they're Afghan is quite pointless. It is just a very amateur football club with a well-defined and particular aim, which is not enough to establish notability for them. --Angelo 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, people may all be equal to you, but people are *not* all equal to some nation-states, and therefore our planet has people in exile and has refugees. Kingturtle 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-pat Afghan football clubs around the world

edit
List of ex-pat Afghan football clubs around the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of, generally, non-notable football clubs. Afghan FC might be the exception, but we don't need a list of one member. Corvus cornix 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:N, WP:HEY, and WP:SNOW. Bearian 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Clayton High School

edit
North Clayton High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

been around for almost a year, and nothing to really show for it. Lacking sources and anything to establish notability. Arthur 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISL Online Communications

edit
ISL Online Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable company, fails the test in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as well as the general test in Wikipedia:Notability WP:N. Springnuts 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of abattoirs in the UK

edit
List of abattoirs in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure what the point of this list is. None of it is sourced, virtually none of them will ever have articles, for the simple reaosn that they are not actually notable, and it was started by an animal rights activist for questionable purposes - I can see how an address directory of abbatoirs would be handy for an animal rights activist, but it's not exactly the stuff of encyclopaedias I think. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub

edit
Sad Clown Bad Dub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete': Non-notable compilation album, with prod removed and no new info added TubeWorld 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETEnnBalloonman 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEas per above --lk 16:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The Sad Clown Bad Dub series aren't compilations, they are on-going releases by the hip-hop group Atmosphere of material unavailable on their albums. Nowadays they are essentially a series of EPs and are just as notable as the group's albums. Whilst this article is petty bare bones at the moment it's a totally warranted inclusion to the Slug/Atmosphere discography that's already on wikipedia, which includes Sad Clown Bad Dub II and the other 8 releases made thus far.

MagicBez 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Redirect. The band is notable, but there isn't enough information in this article for a stand-alone. I can't find anything specific to this, though I've added a reference to another in the series from Spin. WP:MUSIC suggests that if an album article consists of little more than a tracklist, it "may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". In this case, I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriately merged into an article on the Sad Clown Bad Dub series, since there are quite a few of them and many are as sketchy as this one (take Sad Clown Bad Dub 3, which edges ahead of this one merely by dint of cover art). Very few of them offer any kind of sourcing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The band does indeed seem to be notable, but the album does not appear to be. As a result, I must agree with Moonriddengirl that WP:MUSIC asks us to merge this information with the band's article. I believe that the same should be done with the others, although another AfD may be needed to establish such. SorryGuy 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Rabbits

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

A rabbit breeder that made the mistake of selling rabbits for experimentation. They were closed down by the ALF and others. Anther candidate for either deleting or smerging. The template is bigger than the article, and the "see also" is almost as big! Guy (Help!) 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle King

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

The subject of this article is a non notable local news anchor. The article does not mention anything that comes close to meeting the notability criteria. Covering notable stories is not the same as breaking notable stories, and is essentially the job description of all journalists. The only other accomplishments listed are winning Homecoming Queen at her college, and winning a departmental award at a previous job. Prod was removed with no improvement and no explanation. Natalie 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consort Kennels

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

A memorial to a not very important company closed by animal rights protesters. This is not Huntingdon Life Sciences, just a mom-and-pop dog breeding kennel which the animal rights mob decided to pick on. Ironically, as a result of their actions, a good deal of animal testing is now being sent out to places with vastly less stringent regulations than the UK. Strike one for the law of unintended consequences. Anyway, we dont, I think, need an article on every pace this lot managed to drive out of business. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 20:35, 11/15/2007

Mielikki (Forgotten Realms)

edit
Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Insufficient secondary sources exist to write a sustainable article on this character. Mikeblas 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Foxx

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

Miss Myspace is not a notable person unless there are reliable sources which prove that the title is notable. There appear to be COI problems here, too. Corvus cornix 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger (band)

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

This article makes numerous assertions of notability but they are unsourced and unverified. I suspect there is some overstatement here but reliable sourcing will answer that JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brophy

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

COI and other cleanup tags deleted by author with issues not being addressed. Not notable. Delete Blanchardb 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Molnar

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

Non-notable Kung Fu instructor. While sources have been provided, none of them seem to me to be independent of the subject Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion above has probably a lot to do with geography and lack of understanding of the diverse variety of Wing Chun organisations and lineages. Independent sources are difficult to attain in Kung Fu simply because of the non literary and political history of the subject concerned. Joe Molnar is notable in Australia and has made a significant contribution to Kung Fu. Just type Wing Chun into Google and his site is on the first page (www.knoxwingchun.com) and has been for many years showing in part his popularity and contribution to the art! If Joe Molnar is removed than most other Wing Chun instructors listed and written about on Wikipedia should also be removed as many others also could easily be placed in the same boat - see Ian Protheroe for lack of independent sources. In my opinion this Joe Molnar article should be expanded, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.67.29 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milbourne lodge

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

Non notable school, reads like advertisment. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen griffin

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

Non-notable nelogisim, see WP:NEO. STORMTRACKER 94 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was send it to where all attack pages go. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwelled

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

Contested PROD; non - notable. Maybe NEO or NOT#DICT. Rjd0060 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ossuary (band)

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

Article about nn band; no significant coverage in 3rd party RSes, some self-released albums, never signed to a label, unsourced claim of local fame but no assertion of a national tour, etc. per WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot myth

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

This is a very obscure topic, barely notable, if at all. The article has no sourcing as to why it should be considered notable. I see some connection with a website called teamlaw.org but generally looking to websites is a poor measure of notability because they too often contain original research. I see a few references in books[2] and the book coverage[3] seems unrelated to the topic in the article. Maybe there a case to be made why this topic is notable, but I don't see it yet. SaltyBoatr 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources, few Ghits. This doesn't appear to be an encyclopedic topic. It appears more like an original research essay. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a bizarre little article, almost a "stream of consciousness", WUI type thing. It's subdivided into "Some common patriot myths" (there are 3)

and "Some legal arguments called 'frivolous' by some but which others consider meritorious" (they're not tax protestors, they're illegal tax protestors). Mandsford 01:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:BLP, this should never have been restored. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted in a snowball close. Cacycle has undeleted it with various claims that the wrong version were discussed at the last AfD. In my opinion this is a recreation of deleted content and a serious misuse of admin tools given that the content is a BLP nightmare. However, instead of arguing over technicalities I propose a fresh discussion.

Many entries in this article are unsourced. Where there are sources, they are simply vague referencse to the occasion when this was admitted - some are uncomfirmable e.g. "in his standup show". All fail to explain the context of the incident - was it a one off or regular use? What drug was taken and was it legal at the time? This is simply too blunt a treatment for a complex and sensitive topic. It opens Wikipedia up to all sorts of problems. If recreation were to happen it should be from the ground up, with maticulous attention to sources and ensuring that the context of each entry is presented fairly. WjBscribe 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[]]

edit
[[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Toddst1 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Ghostbusters_II#Plot. Singularity 06:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vigo

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it is a hoax. I did a search of the names Vidama of Carpathia and Crocto of Beldoramia, listed in the page, and the only result from google was the wikipedia page itself. I know that something shouldn't be nominated by google hits alone, but anything that is somewhat notable would have more than one website hit. This leads me to believe that the article is a hoax. Icestorm815 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote: "Lord Vigo" is in common enough usage to be worth a redirect. • Gene93k 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers in Heroes (Series)

edit
Powers in Heroes (Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list with no claim of enough notability to merit its own article. Delete, merge into Heroes (TV series), or merge into an article or articles on the individual characters (such articles don't yet exist, and the individual characters may not have enough notability to merit articles). Contested prod. Fabrictramp 20:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutriology

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

Essentially spam for a book by Ken James. As a technical term "nutriology" is close to being a neologism. The article has been written by a number of spas and Papermill Press appears to be Ken James' personal imprint. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi

edit
AfDs for this article:
Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article hasn't been touched since the last AfD back in August. It's notability is established in a single sentence that says the school is a notable landmark. The source for this statement is from an article about an author Sivasundari Bose who wrote a book set in the town. The text is "It is quite natural for her to have incorporated several landmarks of the city in this particular chapter of the novel. The mention of Thillainagar, Hotel Aristo, Main Guard Gate, St.Joseph's Convent, Campion Higher Secondary School, K.K. Nagar, and Khaja Malai strike an instant chord." It says nothing else about the school or why it is a "landmark". No other sources are cited for this article. Two sentence articles, with questionable sources, that have not improved in months do not belong on wikipedia. If someone wants to write an actual encyclopedia article on this topic, they are more than welcome to, but deleting this article now will not loose any information. This article still does not meet notability standards. Andrew c [talk] 19:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldeneye Set Up Editor

edit
Goldeneye Set Up Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The information in this article doesn't appear to be sufficiently verifiable for inclusion in Wikipedia. In general, fan-made editors such as this are unlikely to be discussed in any reliable sources. JavaTenor 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand dream

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

Original research. While many of the figures in the article are backed up with refs, the main point of the article - that New Zealanders aspire to own a house, a car, and maybe a boat - isn't. The first external link, to an article on the "Half gallon quarter acre pavlova paradise", isn't sufficient as this is a humorous look at New Zealand society. It's possible that the article could be saved with more refs and a bit of attention. Otherwise delete. gadfium 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved since I nominated it for deletion, but it still doesn't quite cut it. Changing my vote to weak delete.-gadfium 07:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please take time to read the wiki-pages Australian Dream and quarter acre and The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise which are written by different authors as these also allude to the New Zealand dream. The humorous book is actually listed by the New Zealand government site and the phrase "quarter acre pavlova paradise" is included the New Zealand dictionary because it has become common usage within Kiwi language. New Zealand and Australia have shared cultural values. There are numerous Australian books and films that allude to their culture. Are you also claiming that Australian dream is also false?Badenoch 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC).Also see the websites [4]. New Zealand also has a music group called quarter acre lifestyle [5]. There are reports on the housing market that allude to it -. Real estate agents discuss it [6] Badenoch 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Keep[reply]


  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fascinating Original Research, which I hope finds a home somewhere on the web.. Springnuts 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Author writes well, but this is almost all original research. A weak delete, because I'm sure that there are authors or newspaper columnists who may written about the "New Zealand Dream" in the way that folks in the U.S. used to wax philosophically about "The American Dream". I don't know that Australian dream would have gone far, but for the 1987 film and other treatments of the concept. At the moment, it's someone's attempt to tell us what four million people "really want". This is not much more encylopedic than listening to a "bloke" in an Auckland bar asking, "Ya wanna know what I think the New Zealand dream is? I'll tell ya." Mandsford 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The author has added some reference, the article just needs a couple more. Moreover, just like there is an American Dream, an Australian Dream, I am quite sure that there is an NZ dream worthy of mention in WP - also the prose is written well. Signaturebrendel 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I agree most of the article is original research, but I believe the core concept could be given a decent treatment here. I've added one citation to a book on the subject. I think there's probably enough cited here for it to be worth keeping rather than starting from starting from scratch, although it needs a lot of tidying up. I certainly understand if others disagree. -- Avenue 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced - Gael Ferguson’s book uses the phrase "New Zealand dream" in the title (as a neologism) but doesn't convince that he is dealing with a genuine concept of encyclopaedic value. All other refs I have found are to NZ dream weddings; NZ dream trout fishing etc. Springnuts 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author has put good effort into the page. It's probably something New Zealanders do think about, and since it's a good page, I say keep. lk 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - provided the lead has a substantial rewrite to stress that the dream is a sociological concept (The Australian Dream article also needs this clarification). You can write about the concept factually, but not the intangible dream itself. Speaking personally, I seem to have acquired elements of the dream, but its not what I ever aspired to - I'm more "stuck" with them. dramatic 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a marginal article but shows enough promise. Will defer to NZ residents as to vox-pop but it seems a bit of interest from socio-economic or demographic observers in NZ could lift this out of the OR it's currently languishing in. The pictures - effectively: "here's a house", "here's a car", are pretty pointless and detract from the article though. Suggest author trawls social commentary papers at the local library or otherwise finds further refs to put it beyond doubt. As a post-script maybe it would be better as a section merge to the Quarter Acre article Dick G 06:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge into Arlington Central School District.--Tikiwont 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Middle School

edit
Arlington Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

6 months and it's still two sentences, nothing to establish notability. Arthur 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What notability? Epthorn 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAMASS.TV

edit
USAMASS.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No secondary source have been found through normal means. I found a listing at a online TV listing guide but it was a trivial item. Lots of press releases though. I think this one isn't quite ready yet. spryde | talk 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish civil servants

edit
List of Turkish civil servants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet again another category replication RMHED 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - just to be sure, can someone confirm that it's standard Wikipedia policy to remove list-only articles that replicate categories? I'm pretty sure that it was settled on as a way to reduce listcruft, just wanted to be certain. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC points 2 and 7. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists are not redundant to categorizes, they are complementary. Lists can contain other sorting than alphabetic, or can contain additional information that is not present in categories. Should be expanded rather than deleted. And no, it certainly is NOT Wikipedia policy to remove list-only articles that replicate categories. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lists are complementary to categories when there is more to them than just a list of names. This is just a list of names, therefore it is redundant to the category. If somebody wants to try to rescue it by making this into text instead of a list, then I might change my opinion. Corvus cornix 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Personal opinions have no value here; they are little more than rationalizations of 'I don't like it, so delete it'. Where the WP policy or guideline that says lists (any type of list) should be deleted when a category on the same subject exists? Deleting does not improve WP; improvements do. Hmains 06:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee L. Mercer Jr.

edit
Lee L. Mercer Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably a hoax. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't a hoax, or at least, there really is a Mercer for President web page, which has been getting a fair amount of attention from bloggers who are mocking it enthusiastically. However, I cannot find any evidence that this candidate is likely to appear on an actual ballot, or that he has received any attention from those news sources that cover credible candidates for President. I encourage all those reviewing this article to go and try to read his web page for himself; I think that you'll be glad you did. In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Jack Rosenthal

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

Kept once before but we've become a lot firmer since then on the issue of negative biographies of living individuals of questionable notability. This is a minor official and failed candidate for ore major office, and without the negative stuff we'd not think twice about removing it. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - Does WP:BLP get satisfied simply with a list of sources at the bottom of the article? When I've included contentious material in articles, I try to footnote every contentious statement. Otherwise, how the hey can another editor verify that my work is safe? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the city commissioners in a small city. Apparently known for doing very little in office. The negative material was not related to his political career--just an ordinary relatively minor financial fraud. 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Small city, but largest city in a whole region -- central Louisiana. Also a Jewish person in elected office Billy Hathorn

"*Keep - maybe it's a little long, but IMO notable. Tiptopper 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish scientists

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

Yet another replication of a Turkish category RMHED 16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Lord Kuzon

edit
Fire Lord Kuzon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to fail WP:FICT as it does not have secondary sources and is a rumor inside a fictional world. Hell, we don't allow unsourced rumors anywhere else... spryde | talk 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in South Park

edit
List of places in South Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is a pure plot summary without a slightest attempt to establish real-world notability, it has no sources at all and thus, it fails WP:FICT. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, and not much information about anything. mattbuck 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Yeh

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

Appears to be a hoax created by an editor with a history of creating non-notable articles, apparently about his/her friends and acquaintances. The story in the article has changed several times, and at times has appeared to be an attack article (e.g. this revision). No relevant Google results found; the only reference I could find to a Taiwanese Howard Yeh was some hospital administrator, not an assassinated politician. A touch of WP:BOLLOCKS here, I think. ~Matticus TC 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 20:36, 11/15/2007

Gründerzeit

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

The content of this article is completely wrong. The term is not used this way. Further explanation on the article's talk page (the IP number is me). -- Clemens 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite. Inaccuracy is not grounds for deletion if the subject is noteworthy and viable for a WP article (which it clearly is). If the article has to be rewritten from scratch then so be it, but there's no need to delete it to achieve this. Perhaps a translation of the German Wikipedia article would make a good basis for the English article (not that I'm volunteering - I can just about manage "zwei Bier bitte"!) ~Matticus TC 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite Yeah, putting in a translation request from the German article should do it for a starting point. According to said article, the term actually refers to the economic phase in Germany and Austria in the 19th Century, up to the stock market crash of 1873. But then, I am neither an expert on German history nor fluent in German. Mr_pand 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (and edit?) I didn't really pay attention in German history classes, but this is indeed a very notable time period, especially for German economy and architecture. – sgeureka t•c 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up with sources provided. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A review of sources suggests the article is not as far off base as the nom suggests. There are differing definitions, but they almost always refer to "the period following unification". The term definitely is used for interior design and architecture up to around the turn of the century. It's just possible that the German meaning is more restrictive than that used by English-speaking sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep. I am revising the article based on the German original. It seemed to me that the English version was distorted, and needs to be re-written. BTW if anyone wants to help with the language - I am not familiar with the English version of some German terms. Once it is completed, then I think the issue needs to be re-addressed. docboat 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Docg 11:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell jay

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

An unsourced biography that I think should be deleted as per WP:BLP. A tag requesting sources has been in place since September. I didn't see anything that established notability when I searched google news. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gallagher

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

An article on a fictional character that doesn't seem to pass WP:FICT. The article mostly consists of in-universe information, and the character is already sufficiently covered in The Age of Misrule (series). — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tension ring

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

Contested PROD. The topic fails WP:N in my opinion; no independent sources have been added since January. Google and Google books show some hits, and some of them related to jewelry; but it has not been shown that this is in fact more than a non-notable product by one or a few manufacturers. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Citations would add much to the value of the article, but it is well written, informative, does not read like an advertisement and mentions that tension rings have been in development since 1981, so this is not a new phenomenon. I would like to read about other types of settings too, but I could not find any -- the disambiguation page for setting does not lead anywhere in the jewellery sense. --Cyhawk 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, although I'd like to see someone request for it to be userfied. east.718 at 20:38, 11/15/2007

List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving

edit
List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article seems to basically consist of an unreferenced list of various forms of movement, all of which I'm fairly sure are covered in other articles. Perhaps some of this could be merged, but the article as a whole is fairly redundant. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SAVE I'm the author, and this article is actually NOT a joke. The usefulness of this information is that it assembles all of the many ways that motion is constantly occurring without our awareness. As a compilation it provides this information without a reader having to already know how this motion is occurring, and search out the information in the different articles. The title is funny, but I couldn't think of a better one, I'm open to a better title. I think the information is useful and interesting, given it's redundant of the articles from which I gathered the information but so are many lists. Examples of similar useful lists which are entirely redundant include: List of human anatomical parts named after people, List of distinct cell types in the adult human body, List of Presidents of the United States, List of experiments, etc. Since this is a redundant list the references are in the main articles, why be even more redundant I figured, but references are available. I don't believe that the same standard for citations applies to lists as to regular articles. In fact, I can't ever remember seeing a list with references. So if the title is the issue, please suggest a new title and don't delete this useful and interesting incomplete list. Thanks for your consideration. Earthdirt 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - even if all I can say is WP:ILIKEIT. It's not indiscriminate, it denotes reality and provides information, and if the author sources it (with footnotes, please) I'm game for keeping it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because I do not think it belongs on Wikipedia and I nor do I see a need for it. And sentences like "At this moment a reader's arms, hands, fingers, feet, toes, torso, head, face, eyes, and mouth may be moving"...well, yeah. Mr_pand 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I can see a point to it, but whether it's encyclopedic is debatable. The fact that it's unreferenced, and the title violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references makes me swing towards delete on this one. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change my opinion to keep but rename to something appropriate, now references provided. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The authored has provided multiple citations as of 22:56 Nov. 9. PLEASE RE-EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE NOW THAT IT IS CITED IF YOU COMMENTED ABOVE THIS POINT. Oh, and yes the title almost certainly needs changed, but that's no reason to delete the entire article. I thought Wikipedia was about collaborating to create excellent articles not just to delete those that have issues. I think I have fixed most of the issues brought up, other than the title at this point. The author --> Earthdirt 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge/rename The concept is not silly. See E pur si muove and Sources of improper motion for more sober treatments of similar material. I think this article would be best merged into Motion (physics) in which it could be a section listing examples of motion at the micro and macroscopic level. That article has been tagged as needing expansion since Feb 2007. Think positive, folks. Colonel Warden 23:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This must be the strangest way of testing the limits of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but linking these various ways in which people can be said to be 'moving' is not encyclopaedic. It's linking unconnected things in a way which suggests original research, and is a list of coincidences. I wouldn't object to this as a user page or sub-page but it is not suitable for an article. Sam Blacketer 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deleted, the title should be listed at WP:DAFT - it's a doozy. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Despite the really bizarre title, this is well-sourced, and the many different levels of moving (rotation of earth, revolution of earth around sun, revolution of solar system around galactic center, expansion of universe) etc. have long been the subject of scientific comment. This is the first I've seen that references movement at the subatomic level as well. I hate that the (silly) title has led some people to assume that the article itself is "just silly". Some of us refuse to eat a Tombstone Pizza; I avoided reading "What Color is Your Parachute?" for the very same reason, yet it was an excellent book. I'm saving it to my computer, and I encourage the author to keep working on this one. Good concept, bad p.r. Mandsford 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't see how the addition of those references (or the few subsequent "keep" !votes) address the major problems with this article, including the violations of WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN. The individual statements are correct, no doubt, but they are tied together merely because they make up an interesting collage of information. ◄Zahakiel► 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intersting, but not encyclopedic.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Collection of factoids, no actual encyclopedic content, and carries strong resemblence to chain letters. Would we be writing articles about a car in the same way, i.e. taking into account the movement of the planet and the galaxy to calculate its speed?! Odedee 08:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments' - I think this is certainly not original research -- the concept is taught very often in high schools, aided by resources like this (one could easily find heaps of similar resources). If kept, though, this definitely needs a name change. "List of how" is kind of a borderline red flag since "list" denotes multiple elements while "how" implies that a single concept is covered -- "List of ways in which" would be more appropriate in my opinion, or "list of levels." I don't really like motion in the title, but I can't think of a better alternative that would avoid it. And while I like the creativity of "Wikipedians," some might see it as slightly unencyclopedic. — xDanielx T/C 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR - basically a collection of more-or-less unrelated facts brought together in an essay. While it may be interesting, it isn't encyclopedic as a collection. Cosmo0 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love reading from the folks who say that Earthdirt has done "original research" rather than not enough sourcing. But they may be right. It's possible that Earthdirt actually went out in a spaceship and observed all these things. Dammit, Earthdirt, if that's true... I'm disappointed. You can NOT write an article on your own observations!!! Mandsford 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - "Original research" does not merely mean first-person observation. See the synthesis clause of that official policy; specifically these key portions, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C [...] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article [...] In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be interactively serviced in Wikipedia." (emphasis in the original) The article's author is tying together fragmentary bits of data entirely unrelated to each other except that they each deal with a kind of movement on some level, whether it be cosmic, geographic or biological, and this patchwork does not add up to an encyclopedia article. It's original (though not first-person, do avoid confusion) research. ◄Zahakiel► 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment response - I (the author) strongly disagree that I have presented any original synthesis in this article (which is a list). I have followed the criteria for creating a list as detailed on Wikipedia:Lists this list could be classified as an "annotated hierarchical list" as described on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). I have clearly set a topic (motion at all levels which is occurring in direct relation to all humans at all times) and inclusion parameters in the list; the parameters are not in my opinion too broad nor too focused (this list should be thought of as an interesting subset of List of forms of motion within the universe which would be too long to be practical. Also, the information included clearly deals with existent, verifiable, and relevant human knowledge (and is thus encyclopedic). I created this article specifically as a companion for Motion (physics) which I directly linked it to and to which it directly relates and adds. Upon consulting the synthesis clause of that official policy I begin by reading a title of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" now this to me is clearly not what I have done or have sought to do, mainly because there is no new conclusion or position which is being advanced I am only LISTING a number of ways that motion is occurring directly to all humans all the time. I have made no new conclusions like the one listed in the example of that section, there is no logical progression which produces an "A B = C must be true" thesis, it is just a list assembling well documented human knowledge. Furthermore, the statement in WP:SYN which says "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be interactively serviced in Wikipedia."" only relates to article which make arguments and take positions, which this list clearly doesn't. Either way though, I know that any scientist could tell you it is certainly NOT a new idea that humans are subject to a variety of forms of motion on a variety of different levels at all times. Earthdirt 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, although I would like see references included for this concept as a whole. Also, please rename it to something that doesn't include Wikipedia, e.g. List of motions to which humans are subjected, or something better than that :) .--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely original research without any sources whatsoever supporting the premise of the article. It could perhaps wind up as Wikipedia space humor, but it is not a verifiable article for articlespace. What on Earth does "reading Wikipedia" have to do with how fast we are moving through the universe? Nothing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What article are you reading? This article is extremely well sourced. Every single type of motion listed in the article is easily verifiable and has a source. And yes, we have established that the title sucks and certainly needs changed. But that is certainly not a criteria for deletion. Earthdirt 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; the author objects to the use of the term "synthesis" for his research, because, quoting, "there is no new conclusion or position which is being advanced." This is, however, irrelevant, because the policy does not only deal with novel conclusions, but conclusions which are, themselves, unpublished in independent and reliable sources. The author does not cite any source that ties together these various kinds of motion in a smooth continuum, therefore the research he has done from the various sources that support his statements is... by definition... original. Wikipedia is not a place for information that results from the tying-together of facts by its article's editors, but of reporting the notable and verifiable work of others. If several authors had deliberately contributed data toward the topic of "the overall movement of human bodies as seen from a cosmic perspective" then yes, the sources provided would be suitable to discuss that pre-resarched and pre-published topic. This is what the emphasized "in relation to the topic" clause of WP:SYN indicates. That's decidedly not what we're currently considering for deletion. It's interesting, as some editors have commented. It may have some limited use, as others have opined, but neither of these factors satisfy our inclusion policy. It is research that has not been previously published in a reliable source outside of the article itself; it's original. ◄Zahakiel► 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed; I can't believe that it's Wikipedia policy to not write compilations of relevant existing research relating to a topic if no one has previously compiled it. I think people do this all the time. In fact, would go so far to say as this is the very purpose of an encyclopedia: to organize and assemble human knowledge in a meaningful and accessible way despite the fact that most human knowledge is pretty fragmented. In was reading one of User:Zahakiel articles (Wormwood (star) and noticed that the first part of the article was extremely well referenced and then he got to a section entitled "References in literature" and no citations are provided for the entire section which is a list of four works of fiction that refer to the wormwood omen. Is this list also an originally researched WP:SYN? Or a compilation of facts that are well known and understood if you looked at the sources? Or maybe this is a bad example, maybe somewhere a reliable source has published that this Wormwood star has before been listed in those four works of literature (which i doubt). My List article is no different, it lists basic facts about the universe and specifically types of well understood motion which relate directly to humans in our universe. I am touched that everyone thinks I am such an original thinker, but sadly no, science already knew that all these types of motion related to humans. Earthdirt 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you disagree with the original research policy, you are welcomed to present your case on the relevant talk page. Chris! ct 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a refresher WP:OR states that "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Notice that it doesn't say you can't compile new lists of previously known information. All I'm saying is that there is no unpublished or original work in my article, nor an original synthesis producing a "new idea". It's a compilation of well known and well unified facts. That's all I'm saying, I have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy as you suggest. Are you suggesting that an encyclopedia is a not "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" oh and don't forget that a "A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge". Nearly every substantial article in Wikipedia involves some new and excellent compilation of knowledge, which is what makes Wikipedia so awesome. Earthdirt 00:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, since "anyone can edit" all the articles on this site, you may want to check out the history of Wormwood (star) and see who is responsible for the well referenced sections and who isn't. And even if I was personally responsible for the worst of articles, it wouldn't change the policies with which you are disagreeing; this isn't a personal matter, nor is it about what other stuff is floating around. Of course, you're welcome to try and get consensus for removing the popular culture section of an article I began some time ago if you like. Wikipedia is a compendium of collected knowledge, yes, but knowledge that has already been presented by a verifiable source. What you're doing is a synthesis of material, which IS precisely what that policy is written to have editors avoid; evene though you say you have no fundamental disagreement with it, there it is. ◄Zahakiel► 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that synthesis of published material is still original research. WP:SYN prohibits one from compiling unrelated or indiscriminate facts. And that is exactly what you did with your article. If you have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy, then I see no reason for you to argue. Chris! ct 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to both You are correct that this is not personal nor about what else is floating around I only provided that example for illustration that many/most articles on Wikipedia compile without synthesizing (sorry if you found that inappropriate to do). Synthesis is when a new position is created, there is no new position being created here, which is particularly evident since the famous comedy group Monty Python did a parody of an account of "cosmic motion". Also, the assertation that this articles is a compilation of "unrelated or indiscriminate facts" would be a violation of WP:INFO not WP:SYN. These are actually essentially mutually exclusive arguments as random info precludes a meaningful new synthesis. Yet again, I would like to say that I don't feel that Wikipedia's policy towards synthesis is meant to include compilation (since an encyclopedia is by definition a compilation), after all WP:SYN clearly talks about an "editor's opinion" and a "position" neither of which I have take in this article. I believe it may be you who needs to take the advice that: "If you have no fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia policy, then I see no reason for you to argue." Or if we would like to actually try and solve our dilemma please share what you think my new and original synthesis/position/idea/thesis is and I will post it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to get expert advice on whether the ideas is actually new or not. Earthdirt 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not; random info. can most certainly be synthesized into a position which, as you seem to have ignored earlier, need not be novel, simply unpublished and un-noted by any single reliable source. This is not a problem you seem willing to address. There is also an issue with WP:NOT#INFO, but that's less of an issue than the flagrant O.R. violation. There is nothing mutually exclusive about an article that has multiple unrelated problems. As far as the footnote you link to below, that has nothing to do with this matter since it is not a historical perspective. What we've got here is the fact that you happen to like this topic, but it is neither notable (in the form you've presented it) nor is it encyclopedic in tone. While the latter could be fixed with careful editing, the subject matter will remain as problematic as ever - hence the objections it has received. ◄Zahakiel► 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Earthdirt, I think you still misunderstand why your article should be deleted. Yes you are right about the purpose of Wikipedia. That is to compile knowledge. But you miss the part that the knowledge presented or complied here need to have a verifiable source. It is quite obvious that your entire "compilation of knowledge" here don't have any verifiable source. That is why it is a problem. That is why it counts as original research. Chris! ct 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's certainly a notable topic, and encyclopedic, as expressed by other users above. The Title needs re-wording, the tone could be less Kathy-chatty, and more cites could be added to verify the material. I'm not convinced that this is WP:SYNTH. It needs expert opinion. Bearian 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Merge Wow never seen that article before, what a great compilation. I hope it doesn't get nominated for deletion on the same grounds as people's arguments for deletion of this article. There is some quantitative information and many references in this article not already in Orders of magnitude (speed), and this annotated sub-list would make a nice addition to Motion (physics) if given one of the names suggested by DHowell. I would be okay with merging this article with Orders of magnitude (speed) and Motion (physics) so the information is not lost. Then this page could be deleted due to the silly name. Can we find consensus on those grounds? The author ==> Earthdirt 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:40, 11/15/2007

University of Dreams

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

This is basically an advertisement for an internship program. It doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Robbie098 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep suspect WP:COI and some advertising issues, but there does seem to be something there nonetheless. Borderline at best. JJL 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It does look like an advert, but it has potential to be made into an article, and appears to be sufficiently notable. - Snigbrook 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I tried a rewrite to address concerns here. WP:CORP doesn't really seem to be satisfied. Independent mention of the company is pretty fleeting, nothing is an in-depth look at UOD. Press reports are (fairly poor) pieces on the new phenomenon of paying to get an internship. And the Inc. 5000 listing is hardly a rigorous ranking. The company does exist and this seems to be a growing field so there's a very weak argument to keep but I'm not convinced and given the apparent COI issues it will likely require editor attention just to keep it from becoming an advert again. Let's write the article when the company actually meets WP:CORP and there is something to say about them.-- SiobhanHansa 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo (band)

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

Just does not appear notable to me. The article has been around almost a year though, so AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per common sense. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Barrera

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

This is a "biography" of a fictional wrestler - an "e-wrestler". The image is of a real wrestler, but this guy does not exist. You'd not realise that without a bit of background information, I think. Had me fooled, anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sneaky. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... that's Christian Cage in the picture. Wow. Delete as fiction. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly states this is an E-Wrestler and Christian Cage is used as my pic base. I even went out of my way to list previous pic bases of my character and other characters I've used. You claimed you did some background information, but apparently not enough to get things straight. If you thought this was Christian Cage, that is purely ignorant based on a single image without doing further research.
    And just to clarify, the guy does exist (it's me), but his personal stats are slightly askewed. I am obviously not Jay Reso (Christian Cage). I seriously do not see all the confusion one person brought upon based on an image, which is clearly clarified towards the end. I even linked to Christian Cage's profile to prevent such an event. Delete based on ignorance? I think not. Thegametb 17:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:41, 11/15/2007

Glenn Selig

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

Little claim of meeting WP:BIO. In first several pages of non-wiki ghits, all are PR pieces or passing mentions. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hickens

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

Autobiography of a small market radio personality who has been on the air for just 3 months. No claim of meeting WP:BIO in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns (band)

edit
Hymns (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Brother/Sister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Travel In Herds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not appear to meet notability standards, but using AFD instead of Speedy in case I am missing something. Including the band's two albums in the AFD as well. TexasAndroid 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prek Shkreli

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

I have found many links on Prek Shkreli when you go to google and type in his name. There are plenty of websites linking to his songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanian012 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prek Shkreli did not write this. One of his fans did. I have also found him on www.youtube.com Two of his songs are posted there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanian012 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unsourced biography that should be deleted according to WP:BLP. I didn't find anything indicating notability when I searched google news. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 20:42, 11/15/2007

Coup By Clam

edit
Coup By Clam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

TV episode with no real-world context, primary or secondary sources, or notability. Gavin Collins 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was clear and unamimous consensus to delete. The "Become ordained" page is priceless. --Tony Sidaway 08:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Non-admin closure. --Fang Aili talk 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Lloyd William Gameson III

edit
Rev. Lloyd William Gameson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unable to verify through web-based sources and probably a hoax. Only ghit (-wiki) for "Sedona city of light" gameson is the Universal Life Church [7] and closer examination of the their website shows that ordination in to ULC is achieved via mail-order. [8] nancy 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs)

Austin_Dacey

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

insufficient evidence of notability of the subject given Thelostandthefound 14:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ah yes, fair enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostandthefound (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no idea I have added his other book to his article. He has also written a significant number of articles published in a variety of magazines from well known to obscure, and seems, from a google search, to come up reasonably often in public interviews and secondary sources. Do these things make him notable? Anarchia 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly, with verifiable references, and if the publications were moderately well-known or influential. --72.228.128.22 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Thelostandthefound[reply]
  • Weak delete. he seems non-notable but i think the opinion of someone in the field should carry the real weight. Is such a sentiment documented anywhere? is it a valid source? This may be the answer, or at least a red flag . A subject should have provoked a dialogue from his/her peers. Dacey is not, by definition and with controversy, a notable academic or author. that is, even though he's published a significant number of articles...in a variety of magazines from well known to obscure (see above) Wiki's (flexible) notability requirements emphasize quality over quanity. more specifically, either one of those works is significant in of itself (the basis for a textbook or the subject of multiple, independent works or cited by other authors in academia) OR: the entire body of work collectively satisfies those requirements I mentioned. Other questions one should consider; How important and unique are his/her thoeries/concepts? Are they the subjects of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies? In what ways has Dacey been recognized as a distinguished figure? Has he been the recipient of any awards? are those awards notable and verifiable? Also, please keep in mind that a figure can actually meet notability requirements and still qualify for deletion simply because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject True theory 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add sources, or DELETE Tiptopper 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 unverifiable. Sandstein 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Amin

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

Expired prod. I would delete, but the fact that his letters are kept in a museum gave me pause. Also, no google references at all of this person - but Kazakhstan is not well-represented on the Internet (aside from Borat!). Brought here for more discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am completely unable to determine whether this is real or a hoax — the sources, if they exist, are too obscure. Fails verifiability. —David Eppstein 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google is not the only way to fact-check. Just flag as needing expert attention, i.e. an editor able to visit the museum. Colonel Warden —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is possible that an expert is needed, although I searched on JStor, Project MUSE, Project Euclid and found nothing. I would therefore question the significance of his "contributions to the fields of probability and mathematical analysis". I am verging towards delete, but I think we need a mathematical expert to help reach a decision. Mr_pand 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. —Lquilter 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel we should keep this for a few WP:CSB reasons that suggest we should give a good bit longer time to establish notability. Amin worked pre-1990 which means that his work is less likely to be readily and easily documented on the Internet. Amin was Kazakh which means far fewer likely English-language sources. Finally, persecution by the Soviets clearly affected his professional career, meaning both that he may be less notable than he otherwise would have been, but also that it may simply be harder to track down sources about him. He had some scholarly relationship with Kolmogorov which is a big deal, so, I would suggest that we give him the benefit of the doubt and tag it needing more reliable sources. I pinged the mathematicians project to see what they have to say or if they want to take this one under their wing. --Lquilter 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in history of STM (which doesn't have a lot of math but does have some), also MathSci, also an Eastern Europe history db; nothing. My guess is that there is no English-language literature on this guy and probably very little secondary lit on him period. I still suggest waiting longer than usual to give Kazakh experts some time to come through, but he may simply be not notable. --Lquilter 12:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "persecution by the Soviets clearly affected his professional career, meaning both that he may be less notable than he otherwise would have been" is a combination of a political statement and a misplaced emotional appeal. Are we to include in Wikipedia the names of tens of millions of people who have been persecuted during Stalin's times on the grounds that they could have accomplished more then did had they not been arrested, exiled, or sentenced to death? There are other venues of presenting this type of information. Also, throwing around accusations of systemic bias instead of deciding the case on its merits is a bad form. Arcfrk 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me. Try to relax. One, you have badly misconstrued me if you think I'm advocating inclusion of non-notable people because they were persecuted. Yes, I made a complex comment addressing notability in the context of persecution; I tried to indicate that it was a complex (compound) comment with "meaning both ... but also". I'm sorry my wording was confusing, but my statement acknowledged both that the allegations that he was persecuted (if true) may have reduced his notability; but even if he is still notable, they would also have reduced his, err, findability. You'll note that my very first sentence said keep to give more time to establish notability. (2) I'm not throwing around "accusations of systemic bias". (Which, kind of funny phrasing: It's not an accusation because there's nobody to blame; it's systemic....) I'm pointing out what I thought was fairly uncontroversial: that it's easier to find information on more recent subjects and on English-language subjects and that, of course, leads to systemic bias. Thus if there are reasonable claims of notability I'd suggest taking into account these factors and giving a little latitude in terms of trying to locate verifiable sources. --Lquilter 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-mathematician, that suggests notability to me. --Lquilter 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I do think that we need some reference. The editor who created this page has a total of 3 edits in his contribution history. Two are on this article, including its creation, and his third edit was add the proof of Kolmogorov's inequality to that article, and credit it to Amin. I was going to post an inquiry on his talk page, but I see that he already has a notice to this AfD. Hopefully, he will come here and provide some more info. --Ramsey2006 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully so. Lots of new editors don't know to include references, so that suggests to me, also, that we may want to be a little generous in giving this one some time. --Lquilter 20:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further thought: I wonder if we can find this in Kolmogorov's original article/proof, wherever that was published? --Lquilter 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some searches in Russian journals in which Kolmogorov published, such as Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk, but found no results for Kareem Amin (I found where Kolmogorov published by looking at bibliographies from English/American journal articles that cited his works, although I haven't had time to investigate every avenue). I might do some more searching later...this detective work is fun! Mr_pand 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above. --Cheeser1 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have sent the following request to <heritagenet(at)unesco.kz>:
At <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kareem_Amin>, there is a discussion of whether the Kazakh mathematician Kareem Amin is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Amin>. The people discussing this are finding very little information about Kareem Amin on the internet. If you can provide any relevant information, could you comment at the first URL above, and perhaps add some information at the second one?
Thank you. -- Mike Hardy
Michael Hardy 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: subject not notable for (English) Wikipedia. Additionally, the entry contains opinionated and poorly documented statements of political nature (referring to "persecution") that are inherently non-encyclopaedic. The article itself is weasly on whether he actually published any mathematical works, but the main bibliographical databases for mathematics literature, Math Reviews, Zenralblatt der Mathematik, and Jahrbuch über die Fortschritte der Mathematik do not contain any references to him. This is a strong indication that he does not have any mathematical notability (most Russian mathemaics publications are covered by Jahrbuch pre 1942 and by Zbl and MR since 1940; one can also consult "Реферативный журнал. Математика" for Russian publications after 1952, but it's besides the point, cf. below). Taken by itself, having written letters to Kolmogorov would be a preposterous ground for claiming notability: for example, thousands of Fermatists had written letters to Hilbert with a purported proof of the Fermat's last theorem. Moreover, it appears that mathematics editors have a rather high standard of notability for mathematicians, and having published just any work is not considered sufficient for inclusion. If Kazakh wikipedia had an article on Amin, we could have used it to clarify the situation, although in the absence of any mention of a person in secondary English language sources, (s)he would still fail the notability test for the English edition of Wikipedia. (Sadly, it appears that the Kazakh wikipedia at present does not even have an article on Mathematics; it would be quite some time before it can be consulted for biographical details on mathematicians who lived and died decades ago.) Arcfrk 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you've looked in bibliographical databases, and I have searched mathematical journals, and we have not found anything, I think it is time for my "verging towards delete" to change to delete. Obviously not notable Mr_pand 10:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per David Eppstein's & Arcfrk's persuasive arguments. Pete.Hurd 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unsourced, unnotable. Searching google I found nothing on this person, and I guess nobody else did, given the complete lack of references in the article. Odedee 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm really impressed with the reasearch done here. Kudos to everybody!--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Does the engish wikipedia criteria for notability require that secondary sources establishing notability be in english? For example, I've noticed that wikipedia doesn't have an article on Aborrajados (a Colombian side dish), and have thought about uploading a picture of one, and creating an article. I'm sure that I'll find dozens of secondary reliable sources in spanish, but not so confident about the same in english. --Ramsey2006 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait for a bit. We may get a reply to the email that Michael Hardy sent that would establish this guy's existence. They may know of secondary sources, perhaps not in english, that would establish notability. That notability may or may not be based solely on his mathematical work. If he does exist, and it is true that his letters are stored in the museum, that does suggest a possibility of notability, whether mathematical or otherwise. As for the article being poorly sourced, that is an understatement. We don't even know if we are talking about a real person yet, so declarations of notability or non-notability seem a bit premature. --Ramsey2006 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • grant continuance per Ramsey2006 -- no rush to delete; the AfD banner should be sufficient warning to readers not to accept the information uncritically. Sometimes fact checking takes a little longer. I would be a little bit surprised if information came out sufficient to warrant keeping the article, but it could happen. --Trovatore 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references found before end of AfD. [9] says the museum has approximately 200000 items. If this person really existed then notability would take more than some stored letters. PrimeHunter 22:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there seem to be a lot of items in that museum, which claims to be the largest in central Asia. I think we have to take into account the reputation of this museum and their policies and standards. If basically anybody can donate something to the museum and then claim it is kept at a museum as a mark of notability, we ought to be more skeptical about this whole thing. As someone else also pointed out, corresponding with famous mathematicians is no sign of notability. A lot of non-famous people correspond and talk to famous mathematicians. That is an important function of being a famous mathematician. --Horoball 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My email to <heritagenet(at)unesco.kz> has now bounced with this comment:
<[email protected]>: connect to mail.unesco.kz[213.211.74.197]: No route to host
It's not the museum's email address. Their home page had no email address as far as I could tell, but it was a subpage of a subpage... (etc.) of one that had that email address. I'll see if I can find something else. Michael Hardy 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userify No claim to notability here. The possible ones are (a) he got extraordinary grades and (b) he was deprived of his career in the Great Terror. (There seems to be also a proof of Kolmogorov's inequality using martingales, which is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.) Millions of people have extraordinary scholastic careers; I went to school with someone who had an Ivy League doctorate at 20, but he doesn't have a WP article, yet. Most of the Soviet Union were on the fringes of the Terror. It may well be that he did something truly notable, which is why I suggest userification; but until it turns up, why is this in article space? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McFly IV

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

I believe the article McFly IV should be deleted as the ONLY reference we have is the band's MySpace profile, and that only lists that it will be the 4th studio album and the date. We don't even know the name. Until such time as the album is properly announced, with accompanying information, dates and the like, it is pure speculation and unverifiable. mattbuck 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Anthropology Project

edit
Urban Anthropology Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This sounds like a really awesome educational project. However, I am not persuaded that the encyclopedia needs an article about it; I am not sure that it meets the notability criteria. It has lots of sources cited, but something between very few and none of them are independent articles about the project per the reliable sources guidelines. W.marsh's prod removed by creator with good-faith efforts to improve and more fully source the article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bamdad bahar

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

I could not verify this autobiography because there was insufficient reliable third party coverage in the 141 ghits. (The Washington Post article doesn't appear to correlate with the article's contents). MER-C 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see: Here's one - HYDROGEN POWER:Company Aims to Give Fuel Cells a Little Backbone Voss Science 30 July 1999: 683 DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5428.683

Here's another: http://www.knowledgefoundation.com/sfcbook.html

here's another: http://www.teledyne.com/news/energy.asp; there are actually half a dozen article on Teledyne's news website ...you have to search though it...new products, news releases (in 2000 and 2001)

here's another: (for the music)(tribute featured for Princess Diana) http://www.princess-diana.co.uk/diana-media-song.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamdadb (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply That's a paper written by Bahar, a song written by Bahar, and a press release directly from the company. What we need is two or three newspaper articles about Bahar himself, and how important he is. Or the book that was written about him and published by a significant publisher. Or two or three magazine articles about Bahar, and how important he is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Science article was written by Voss, the Teledyne items were written by Jason Van Wees (and are still posted some 7 years after the departure), the Princess Diana web site is maintained by a bunch of fans in Germany that have nothing to do with Bahar ... importance is not a metric for wikipedia, it is simply a resource for information ... a reference...the accuracy of the information can not be disputed. There are some really esoteric pages on Wiki...its an information resource... its appropriate to meet someone and then look them up and get an idea who it that you met... A google search will also provide news articles in the Sussex Countian ...independent articles ...a whole series actually.

If you're interested in helping rewrite the notability criteria or the reliable sources criteria, or helping to redefine the verifiability policy, that would affect many more articles than just this one, so this AfD isn't the right place to have that discussion. Here, we're just looking for sources that meet this criteria that would prove that the subject meets this criteria, as they exist now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the criteria (which I had not done before). Fair enough..lets delete it. As long as the criteria are applied uniformly and fairly...I am all for it. Do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.0.84 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Abraam

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

An unsourced biography that I think should be deleted as per WP:BLP. When I googled his name, I found this article, which might be a good source, but I'm not willing to pay for it to find out for sure. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VerdaTech Energy Management & Consulting

edit
AfDs for this article:
VerdaTech Energy Management & Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


The article is about a company that is at most borderline in notability. The article itself has little more content than listing the companies awards, which themselves are non-notable. Please comment here. User A1 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of the largest energy consulting companies in western Canada, I would say that is reasonably notable. Maxeboy 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that distinction is not very important, as it is too specific (To clarify what am saying, the word blue in "blue bee" is the largest word in quotation marks in this sentence) -- the field is small, being large in this field does not make one notable. According to their website they have four staff members. User A1 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to their whois information, the general manager, Mr Farrel is also the registrar of the website, something that is very atypical of large organisations User A1 08:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- big or little, eastern or western Canada, VerdaTech still has to meet the specific requirements of our Notability Guideline. I found just 81 unique Google hits, nothing in Google News, and 3 items in Google's News Archive. I think the CTV story from the archive (and also cited in our article) is good but not quite good enough since it's more about energy efficiency than about the company; I think others looking at this AfD should just see the story and decide for themselves. The same is true of the long Calgary Herald article -- it's more about energy efficiency than Verdatech but others may want to see for themselves. I don't think the Calgary Small Business Week award finalist story cited in the article is sufficient, either. --A. B. (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless notability is properly sourced, which seems unlikely). Per their website it's only got several employees doing energy inspections. If we covered every company of that size with nothing more to their credit we probably would overload the servers. For what it's worth there is a source here.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:43, 11/15/2007

List of video game developers in Austin, Texas

edit
List of video game developers in Austin, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, somewhat arbitrary intersection. MER-C 12:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:43, 11/15/2007

Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon

edit
Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This political party exists only in Wikipedia. For example: Coalition of the Administrative Political Parties Google search and Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administasyon Google search. This has been prodded once before and I thought I've AFD'd this already but it seems I haven't. --Howard the Duck 12:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't verify this party. If Congress or the COMELEC itself doesn't recognize one such "CAPP" party, then no such organization exists, either on paper or as far as legal sources are concerned. --- Tito Pao 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beats me as well. It looks like it was CSD'ed but was later restored before it was AfD'ed, so I don't know who created this article and whoever placed it on the election article. I have some ideas on how this article was created, but I'll never know unless someone can show me the original history that was apparently deleted due to the CSD. If you can read my mind---I mean, if you can recall the issues we used to have on the election article---you know what I'm talking about ;-) --- Tito Pao 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chippy Charles

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

For starters, no such character exists for this television show. Secondly, even if such a character existed, precedence precludes individual characters of this show from having their own articles. Thirdly, the article states "He can only appears in some backgrounds and cheers for other non-backgrounded characters.", which sounds like a clear case of non-notable for both in- and out-of-universe context. Finally, to add to my first point, I suspect this is just a hoax. Yngvarr 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hoax is not a valid reason for speedy.DGG (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin told me to put that tag on the page. Just close this AFD. The sunder king 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did, but I also said it did not meet CSD. Clearly Wikipedia is exceeding my expectations today. Prodego talk 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As JuJube points out, there's a very good chance that this is Danny Daniel, a well-known hoaxter. I'm getting tired of tagging his sock pages, because his history shows that he's made up several socks per day, and it's just not worth tracking this guy. But I'll AFD tag hoax arts created. If an admin wants to review the history, see my archived case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel, but I'd like to recommend speedy; regardless of hoax status, WP:CSD#G5 applies. Yngvarr 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Thatcher makes a good point, let's fix the fight at morgellons first and then revisit this. Thanks to all for their input. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons Research Foundation

edit
Morgellons Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was split out form morgellons because the arguments over this group's internal schisms were distracting that article. But the two subjects are inextricably linked; this foundation is pretty much the sole source for the existence of the supposed disease, which is essentially rejected by the medical establishment. As written, it begs the question of the legitimacy of morgellons, and is also a WP:BLP nightmare since none of the individuals involved are independently notable enough to receive any attention outside of this small area. I think it should be redirected, and rewritten in the process to remove the BLP concerns, and that is effectively a deletion so I'm bringing it here. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guy's summary is basically accurate and explains why I split the article in the first place. There was factional fighting and edit warring at Morgellons between believers and skeptics, and there was tendency on the part of the skeptics to want to include negative information about the Foundation and the people associated with it as a way of disparaging the disease. The Foundation has received press coverage in multiple independent sources, mostly but not entirely focused on its role in promoting awareness of the condition. By splitting the topics the other editors and I were able to work out a compromise at Morgellons where that article focuses on the medical community's view of the condition, putting the criticism of the Foundation elsewhere. Merging the MRF back to the Morgellons article risks returning to the strategy of saying the disease is unbelievable because the people who promote it are unbelievable, rather than saying the disease is controversial and here are the medical arguments on both sides. Bearing those things in mind, if Guy wants to sit on this article for a few weeks he's welcome to try, but doing a merge and delete and then walking away is unlikely to end happily. Thatcher131 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not a notable organisation independent of Morgellons, and will rarely be mentioned (if ever) in any sources apart from in connection with Morgellons, for which there is an article.Merkinsmum 12:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It meets verfiable via the post-gazette link. The notability is the question. Is there something that makes this foundation notable? spryde | talk 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being the subject of prime-time reports on CNN, ABC, and NBC (and, yes, the MRF or people in it appear in all of the reports, which is not surprising since evidently all of the reports were produced as a result of the MRF actively campaigning FOR exposure; they were not just passing references that appeared while discussing Morgellons) would certainly seem to qualify as notable, and an organization with some 10,000 supporting members is certainly large enough to be notable, even without the media attention. While WP does not base decisions on precedent, it is true that a very similar and equally notable organization, the International Lyme and Associated Disease Society (ILADS) is mentioned numerous times in the WP articles about Lyme and the "Lyme Controversy" and yet does not have its own entry here. Dyanega 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and move a couple of sentences about the organisation's recent problems back into the main article. The lead is largely taken up with a substantial quote from the orgs website, which isn't what leads are for and is practically an advert. The Press coverage section duplicates material from the main article. The conflict section contains way too much detail for what is utterly irrelevant in an encyclopaedia. Only one source is independent (the newspaper) and is not always used appropriately. For example, the collection amounts come from an interview with Ms. Leitao, who is not herself a reliable/independent source. Therefore this section is largely built on text given out by those involved in the squabble. As Guy says, there are significant BLP concerns here. I appreciate Thatcher131's concerns but don't see how the very little text that would go back could upset the main article much. It seems the main justification for the creation/existence of the article is in order to resolve an internal dispute between WP editors, which is a poor reason. Colin°Talk 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's not got any BLP problems at the moment, because it doesn't tell us what the conflict was about at all, apart from saying donations started at the time and different factions gave different explanation for it. as such, it's completely uninformative and doesn't need it's own article if we don't feel comfortable discussing each faction's claims about the other. Just needs a sentence or two in the main article.Merkinsmum 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Rewrite may be a good idea, and a merge not, per Thatcher131. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VerdaTech Energy Management & Consulting

edit
AfDs for this article:
VerdaTech Energy Management & Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


The article is about a company that is at most borderline in notability. The article itself has little more content than listing the companies awards, which themselves are non-notable. Please comment here. User A1 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of the largest energy consulting companies in western Canada, I would say that is reasonably notable. Maxeboy 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that distinction is not very important, as it is too specific (To clarify what am saying, the word blue in "blue bee" is the largest word in quotation marks in this sentence) -- the field is small, being large in this field does not make one notable. According to their website they have four staff members. User A1 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to their whois information, the general manager, Mr Farrel is also the registrar of the website, something that is very atypical of large organisations User A1 08:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- big or little, eastern or western Canada, VerdaTech still has to meet the specific requirements of our Notability Guideline. I found just 81 unique Google hits, nothing in Google News, and 3 items in Google's News Archive. I think the CTV story from the archive (and also cited in our article) is good but not quite good enough since it's more about energy efficiency than about the company; I think others looking at this AfD should just see the story and decide for themselves. The same is true of the long Calgary Herald article -- it's more about energy efficiency than Verdatech but others may want to see for themselves. I don't think the Calgary Small Business Week award finalist story cited in the article is sufficient, either. --A. B. (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless notability is properly sourced, which seems unlikely). Per their website it's only got several employees doing energy inspections. If we covered every company of that size with nothing more to their credit we probably would overload the servers. For what it's worth there is a source here.[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pill Hill, California

edit
Pill Hill, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yes, all communities are notable, even those with only two residents. But I dispute Pill Hill's status as a "community". Yes, there's a photo of a highway sign, but that doesn't satisfy my doubts. The sign looks like it may be homemade, or at least not an official highway sign: it's supported by what looks like two PVC pipes, which are buried in a bed of white gravel used for yard trim. Plus, the font on the sign isn't anything I've ever seen. (California highway signs are professionally made.)

More importantly, this article is unverifiable. It claims the U.S. Bureau of the Census lists the population as 2, but as mentioned on the talk page the Census Bureau doesn't keep records on this "town". A Google search for "pill hill" california doesn't turn up anything not from Wikipedia. Most ghits relate to the Oakland neighborhood with the same name. A search for "pill hill" twentynine palms turns up Wikipedia mirrors with the San Bernardino County template (Twentynine Palms is a nearby community).

Oh, and I can't find this place with mapping programs. Google Maps takes me to the Oakland neighborhood, and Yahoo Maps turns up the town of "Hill" near the Oregon border. szyslak 11:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any more than you can and the census tools do not list this as a CDP (Census Designated Place). Unless we can get a bit more verifiable information other than that sign, it might be best to delete for now. spryde | talk 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moved to Douwe Korff. Sandstein 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Douwe Korff

edit
Professor Douwe Korff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsourced biography. As per WP:BLP, all unsourced material must be removed. Note also that a tag requesting more sources has been in place for two weeks, with no improvements. Regarding notability, I can't find more than trivial coverage when searching for "Douwe Korff" on google news. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Doorbell

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

No reliable sources seem to be available about this person. While the article claims notability, and Google gives some hits to blogs etc., the only source given is a private homepage, and no reliable sources have been added since January. If there are indeed no such sources, then the material is not suited for an encyclopedia - all the more because the article is apparently about a living person. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the notability arguments, but the "reliable sources" argument is absolutely bogus. We're talking about trying to find information about a person using a pseudonym, used during a period when the web did not exist, operating in a field that was generally underreported and where the participants deliberately avoided publicity. As someone who writes extensively about tech during this era, let me assure you it's difficult to find reliable information about anything from this era. Try to find good reliable information about the CDC 8600 for instance. Maury 12:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's the point. If it is not possible to find reliable sources about this topic, an encyclopedia should not cover it. That's not bogus, it's a Wikipedia policy: No original research. --B. Wolterding 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these policies are designed to protect the WP from the insertion of incorrect information. They are, however, often misinterpreted to state something very different indeed, like your argument here. Do you feel that the person mentioned in this article does not actually exist? Or did not make these recordings? If you do not feel this way, and I do not, then OR obviously doesn't apply.
Let me be clear, I am not arguing against removing this article, I am arguing against removing it for the wrong reasons.
Maury 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether the statements in the article are true (that's something I can't check anyway), but rather whether they are verifiable. And without reliable sources, I can't reasonably verify them, nor can anybody else. They may be something you extract from the tapes, or rumour that you find spread on the Internet - but that's not suitable material for an encyclopedia. I don't see what's wrong about these reasons. --B. Wolterding 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, now these are reasonable reasons. Maury 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're sorry, you have reached an article that has been deleted or is no longer in service. As much as I enjoy listening to the Phone Trips tapes, they don't say much about his life or provide much background that contributes to a biography. It's also hard to deduce whether he's truly a notable figure within the category of phone phreaking, though the tapes are a good explanation of the phone system. Joybubbles (Joe Engressia) and John Draper (Cap'n Crunch) have been covered in magazines and other sources, and Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs are known for achievements outside of phreaking. So, I'm going to go with a delete on this one. "This is a recording. 2-1-3-1-5." --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Not individually notable. There weren't even many merge arguments. Feel free to add properly referenced information about Epstein to another supercentenarian article, but there wasn't much in this article to preserve, and it's not likely many will type "Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)" into the search box, so we don't need a redirect. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker)

edit
Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tracker of supercentenarians. As the history and talk page show, the article history icludes a series of dubious edits involving an anon IP claiming to to be Epstein himself, and by another researcher in the field Robert Young/User:Ryoung122. I have today removed the dubious material (some of it for BLP reasons, see the article's talk page), but the notability issues apply equally to the current version and the version before removal.

It seems to me that none of the assertions in the article confer a presumption of notability per WP:BIO. There are no references, just three external links, which fall well short of establishing notability:

Young describes Epstein as a "recluse and he does not seek publicity"[12]. Young also claims that Epstein's work "has had a far-reaching impact", but the evidence so far falls far short of establishing notability.

Note that the article on Robert Young is also being discussed at AfD. It might be better to consider creating an article on supercentenarian trackers or supercentenarian tracking, because there seems to be enough material to establish notability for the field of research, even though the individual researchers fall short. I don't think that it be would appropriate to merge this article in a new article, because most of the facts asserted in it are unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.. Again, for those who thought it was 'about me,' I said it was about the entire field. But consider: we cannot determine if life-extension treatments work if we don't know how long the human life span is. Also, the question has been raised: is the human life span in a 'static-state' (little change in the past 100,000 years) or has it been increasing? Thus it is important to answer this question. Also note, once again, there are multiple, multiple sources for Mr. Epstein which I will soon post.Ryoung122 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing the validity of your research, Mr. Young. The issues at question are solely whether the specific individuals who have pursued such research are notable for doing so. The field can be notable without individual researchers being so. Powers T 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If there are sources which demonstrate notability then I would be delighted to withdraw the nomination. But I also think it's important to note that notability is not established by primary sources, or by trivial secondary sources such as inclusion in a list of participants at a conference. Please do read and study WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Seems notable enough to keep while the overall topic is fleshed out. Colonel Warden 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally fails our tests of notability. --Orange Mike 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually,the list (which appeared 1970-1988 and 1991-95 and only ever listed national recordholders) disappeared as part of the editorial makeover into pictures and soundbites rather than dense facts.Guinness has always been rigorous about false claims if not always immune.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable - just a researcher in a field that may or may not be notable. MLA 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for full transparency, I suggest that User:12.144.5.2 (the leaving essay left by Epstein at the static IP address he used to edit Wikipedia) be restored, possibly permanently and at least for the duration of this deletion debate. Talk:Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker) also has the following:

    "On November 7, 2007, he was amazed to discover the existence of this biographical article about him,which he considers another example of Wikipedia's bloated tendency to include material of little conceivable interest to the general reader.He continues to contemplate the creation of his own Wiki site,which would be hosted on a Putnam Internet server and operate on the principle of his holding the compilation copyright and contributors retaining all right to the use elsewhere of their contributions."

    By the way, does anyone know why Guinness Book of Records ceased published lists of oldest people? Carcharoth 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Briefly: people lie. They lie big-time about claims of longevity. The Guinness folks couldn't get reliable information about the matters, and chose to follow the same rule Jimbo adopted for us: better no info than false info. --Orange Mike 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I like the idea of supercentenarian tracking as an article to cover the researchers and the field in one place. Carcharoth 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ergo, the need for people like Louis Epstein. Note that Guinness eventually revived much of what was deleted when it became apparent that there was continued interest and dedicated persons like Louis Epstein who wouldn't let the concept die. So, whether this article is deleted or not, there should at least be a mention of his efforts in an article, 'supercentenarian tracking.'Ryoung122 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not all 'lists' are created equal. A list multiply cited by scientific papers and included as such is QUALITATIVELY different than, say, a list of paper-clip collections.Ryoung122 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please explain why these are not 'reliable' sources:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10945450260195667

http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf

Ryoung122 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This one may be less reliable, but it's apparent there are sources out there.

http://www.geocities.com/crvillamin/longlife.htm

I'm not going to continue to fight this 'lost cause.' Instead, I plan to apply the new-found standards of exclusion to a plethora of 'junk' articles that really shouldn't be in Wikipedia.Ryoung122 07:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I'm afraid you may have to accept that only some of the people mentioned at extreme longevity tracking will get their own articles. It is perfectly acceptable to include short paragraphs about them in that article (effectively a merge), so I suggest you concentrate on that, and improving that article. I will help you there, and some other editors may also help out as well. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit as well. Carcharoth 10:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as per users Carcharoth and Crusio too. Extremely sexy 13:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, did you really mean "keep"? Carcharoth recimmeded merger, and Crusio recommended deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would interpret "keep and merge" as a merge. See my comment above about GFDL. Keep and merge is at least more logical than delete and merge. Educating people about AfD lingo is a necessary part of participating in AfD. There is really no need at all to question a "keep and merge" comment, as it is plain what is meant by this. Keep can refer to the content, topic and title. Sometimes a title needs to be deleted, but the content can be kept. Sometimes a topic is notable enough to be covered, but the current content and title should go for now and it should be started from scratch, sometimes "delete and redirect" makes sense if a redirect is needed but the current content should be binned, etc, etc. Carcharoth 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's how I'd interpret it too, but when someone says "per X" but X has recommended something slightly different, I think that it's a good idea to suggest that they wish to clarify the intentions. I have sometimes !vote "keep" per X when I meant "delete per X", and it has always been useful to have someone seek clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though his work may well be respected or even unique, there is no credible evidence of non-trivial independent coverage of the person himself. Thus, we may not have an article. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Louis is a neat guy, a dilligent researcher, and a tenacious defender of the Divine Right of Kings, but I can't see how he meets WP:BIO. I don't think merging makes sense; his political and business activities aren't really relevant to his tracking of supercentenarians. I think it's sufficient to note that he is the author of the lists in question, and leave it at that. Choess 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO - insufficient secondary sources. I'd be happy with a reasonably short summation of this and Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) being merged into Extreme longevity tracking. —Moondyne 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, a short one-paragraph merge into the 'extreme longevity tracking' seems a reasonable compromise. One comment: Louis maintains half of the GRG lists, I maintain the other half (actually a majority, but who's counting). The point is, when the media want to quote an expert on the world's oldest person, they turn to the GRG, Robert Young, or Louis Epstein. (Filipe Prista Lucas of Portugal will be the next, as he is the rising star). Note here's the latest:

http://www.shelbynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=93&ArticleID=52214&TM=8245.434 Ryoung122 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the Robert Young article has been deleted, there's no point in keeping this 1. So I changed my vote and striked through my previous vote. Neal 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or we someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Wikipedia is a compact source for a lot of different themes and only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Statistician 10:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No (is Wikipedia running out of webspace), no (do we want someone to delete a lot of articles), and no (Wikipedia admin not interested/says unimportant). It's more about citing sources. Scenario: you know a friend in real life (like Robert knows Louis Epstein), and everything you write about him is from memory and not sourced on the Internet. Therefore, a lot of the source for this article is Robert's brain, which fails substantial source on Wikipedia. Neal 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I only have a minor interest in the "world's oldest people" and I've heard of Louis Epstein, having seen his research sited in various articles, so he certainly seems notable. 68.45.106.216 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem is, you can find plenty of works written by Louis Epstein, but not many about Louis Epstein. That itself is the problem. Neal 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment (continued) And can I just say, for all of you that are still voting for keep, you obviously know Robert Young is a more notable person in the field of supercentenarians. Sure, Louis Epstein was his senior, being over a decade over him, but his fame was before the Internet age. Robert Young became a more successful 'supercentenarian tracker' having been in more media than Louis Epstein. And since his article was deleted, it would be pointless to having a less notable supercentenarian tracker with his own article, reason quite being logic. Neal 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. --Tikiwont 10:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Khan

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

Completely non-notable, the references are the main pages of non-notable federations without containing the information they cite and even if they did all the information is non-notable. Creators name gives implication of conflict of interest. –– Lid(Talk) 10:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge into List of Greyhawk deities. I'll just do the redirect though. Interested editors may merge further content if they see fit. --Tikiwont 10:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye'Cind

edit
Ye'Cind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fictional god with no content, real-world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk canon. --Gavin Collins 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Demo Tape

edit
Early Demo Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hanson made an early(?) demo tape. Not notable. I suppose it will come as no surprise that most bands have made demos, but the sad thing is that there are many Wikipedia articles on non-notable demo albums. SolidPlaid 09:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being a demo tape of a recognized band can be a notable item. Verifiable with reliable sources is the problem. spryde | talk 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "for promotional use only, it was never released to the public" - if that is the case, Wikipedia is not the place for this information. "Though Hanson themselves have never acknowledged the existence of these recordings and have stated that they are only rumors, several fans have managed to find them through the internet", which to me suggests this may not actually be an actual Hanson demo tape. We need reliable sources... Mr_pand 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are famous bootlegs and demos, but they are famous/notable because critics have actually written about them. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETourism

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

WP:OR - Author references himself and links to his own page. Article has been marked as needing sources, cleanup and orphaned for a year. Torc2 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travel website

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

Article is unsourced WP:OR and is already covered by Category:Travel websites. Torc2 08:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Buhalis

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

Violates WP:AUTO, self-written article with no secondary sources. Torc2 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Western Vehicle

edit
Great Western Vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently self-created article violating WP:N, WP:COI, WP:VSCA and WP:MADEUP. Every "source" refers back to author's website. -- Dougie WII 08:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shwartzman Etrogs

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

This article was set up as a prod [19] a few days ago by User:Shuki out of concern for WP:COI, WP:N. Most of it is certainly self-serving self-advertising violating WP:NOT#ADVERTIZING, but there is a small amount of useful information that should be merged into the main Etrog article. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge (redirect) and combine summarized information into Etrog article. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN company. Information is also WP:OR. The only information that might be able to merge to the etrog article, or perhaps create a legitimate article on its own, is if there is documentation of the existance of this 'ordang' variety, hence the original prod. --Shuki 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if it is a company it is still a different subject, we can have 2 articles on Pepsi and on coke since they are different although they are both cola companies, keep in mind that a schwartzman esrog is not the same as others, and yes to clarify it is the most notable esrog than all other brands, since it is seeds from the esrog that the biggest Posek of the last generation used, and when it comes to be mehader on such a mitsve people do only settle for the best. this is written in all Yiddish media and unfortunately i cannot find it online to source it--יודל 11:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. We have standards here, and the article on this company currently fails those standards. --

Avi 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: yes but they aren't available online--יודל 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't disqualify them off the bat. If the sources show notability, that is plenty good. What are the sources you are referring to? --Eliyak T·C 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for instance before yom tov sukos i read the whole article here translated word for word in a Yiddish magazine called Ztiet-Shrift published in new york area monthly, this claims are not new to me because i read this numerous times in many Jewish media throughout the years but the aren't online--יודל 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An independant source discussing a company does not make it notable. This backyard farm must pass WP:CORP. --Shuki 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in this case it is notable because the media not only discuses it as a product but they discuss the fame of it, the history at length of it, and every detail of its clients and so fourth.--יודל 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On-line sources are not required. However, we need citations that would enable someone to potentially look the article up and check the reference. A cite needs to contain an issue date for a newspaper or magazine (month and year for a monthly) and a page number. I'm afraid that assurances that there are articles or references to a periodical without identifying a specific issue are not reliable. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did identify the specific issue and it was a front cover story. so it is indeed reliable--יודל 12:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Yidisheryid, that is your personal opinion. Since you cannot provide a copy of the issue, we have no idea if it is a credible magazine, a credible article, or merely a paid advertisement for a backyard farm. --Shuki 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki it isn't my personal opinion since i have only told you the name of the magazine the issue the date and the page. For the record it is Shuki's personal opinion that the article is a paid ad, we have a very clear absolute idea that it is indeed a credible magazine and every respected library has copies if u really want to read it, for somebody to say that the new york times magazine has a paid article instead of a normal article is his personal opinion not mine.--יודל 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yidisheryid, I never said that. Read what others type slowly and surely before accusing. --Shuki 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nappyafro.com

edit
Nappyafro.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources independent of the site to establish notability. Meets none of the criteria in WP:WEB. Spellcast 07:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical works in time signatures other than 4/4

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of musical works in time signatures other than 4/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Encompassing too many items, grouping loosely associated topics, listcruft.

Fails WP:NOT#DIR  M2Ys4U (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au Revoir Simone

edit
Au Revoir Simone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem like a notable musical group, putting here since the article has been around for a while. Dougie WII 06:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Charles Matthews, non-admin close Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forecasting fraudulent financial statements

edit
Forecasting fraudulent financial statements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This strange essay looks funky to me, possibly copyvio, probably original research, a near orphan. SolidPlaid 06:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Jovino Gun Shop

edit

The result was keep. Rudget zŋ 18:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jovino Gun Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very few sources to be found, notability claimed by being "seen" in two separate films. Claim as "oldest gun shop in the USA" seems to be unfounded after search. Jmlk17 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No references found in third-party sources; Google search primarily turns up listings, passing references, and a couple of blogs talking about how how cool the sign is. As for the claim to fame, I believe those sightings should go on the more notable articles about the movies it was seen in. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bare XML

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

Being listed on CPAN isnt enough. No reliable independent coverage has been provided, and I cant find any. John Vandenberg 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) John Vandenberg 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RPM of the module is distributed on the OpenSUSE 10.3 DVD. Also, you have to realize that it isn't just on CPAN, it is listed in the main CPAN index; there is an approval process for that.

Also, consider that this is a new module. The entire engine was written within the last year. The reason it has not yet been rated alongside other modules by independent sources is just because of the short age, not because of the notability.

The module itself has the same capabilities as XML::Simple, yet is 100X faster. That may not be something someone wrote an article on yet, but it is only a matter of time until it happens.

If you do take the page down, it is just a personal opinion on whether you consider OpenSUSE and CPAN notable. Those ARE independent parties, and so do meet notability requirements as I read them.

Continuing, there is high relevance to a number of other articles on wikipedia, such as the various types of XML, and the smaller XML languages that this is targetted toward.

-- David Helkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.202.221 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete both. Sandstein 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Ray

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

Non-notable professional wrestler, unsourced, original version of the article was a blatant hoax including claims he was trained by wrestler when the training wrestlers age was 15. –– Lid(Talk) 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this are obvious duplicated such as Sammy ray and other articles of this manner. –– Lid(Talk) 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew U The Perfectionist

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

This subject clearly fails the requirements of notability for biographies and music. With no references either in the article or to be found, and garnering a paltry five Google hits in total, he does not merit encyclopedic treatment. VanTucky Talk 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as I originally tagged it with before the tags were removed by the author. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/mail) 07:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital library projects

edit
List of digital library projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository of links. Hu12 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Princess Frederica of Hanover

edit

The result was keep. Rudget zŋ 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Frederica of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insignificant princess with no individual notable information that appears outside of the articles about her parents. Indeed, all of the information essentially is about her parents or about her family, but nothing of note about her as an individual. This is only a genealogical entry, in violation of WP:NOT. Her presence can be noted on the pages of her suitors and her parents and that would be sufficient. Being a princess isn't a unique position and isn't reason for inclusion in Wikipedia solely on that note. Charles 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because she is even less notable for the same argument, minus marriage:

Princess Marie of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep - Charles, I think you are now going too far with this mass deletion. I agree with the deletion of the Taylor children and similar, but this person was the daughter of a monarch. That is notable in itself. Being a Princess is of note, especially when a King's daughter. As I said, I think Charles you need to stop now. Deleting articles about the Taylors and Lascelles is fair enough. You now seem to want to delete all royals!--UpDown 08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this comment to be very, very bizarre. Being the daughter of a monarch may be notable, but it is certainly not a unique circumstance or one individually notable. Therefore the fact that monarchs may have daughters can be acknowledged on the pages of those monarchs. No, I do not want to delete all royals. I am a strong believer in monarchy and a fervent supporter of it. I will nominate for deletion anyone who is not notable. It make it easier to keep track of those who are notable and avoids all of the fluff and nonsense that comes with turning Wikipedia into a genealogical repository for otherwise non-notable princesses. Charles 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you are not acting like a monarchist! But thats immaterial. Being the child of monarch is notable and not that common. She would have recieved widespread media attention at that time. We are indanger of deleting royals from time gone by because we assume they didn't get media attention, because its not on the Internet. If she'd lived now, she would have got media attention like Prince Anne does now and she would have got media attention then. I wonder whether Charles could improve articles and add more references instead of this deleting mania? --UpDown 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could quite possibly not discuss me and take it to my talk page? One, your first comment offends me. I don't glorify royalty because titles like "princess" make me swoon. Two, "she would have", but none currently exists and nothing can substantiate it. Three, we are not in danger of losing anything that can't be put at their father's article. Four, they don't live now, they're each taking a dirt nap in Europe. Charles 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I have offended you, never my intention. However, I am sure these articles do exist, just because they are not on the Internet doesn't mean they don't exist. Deleting articles like these turns Wikipedia into a 21st-century encyclopedia that ignore people if they don't have constant Internet references. That, in my eyes, is a very dangerous precedent. And the information should not be on her father's article, that should mainly be about him, not who his daughters married.--UpDown 08:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, because who his daughters married is simply not important or notable. Only one married, a baron. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository for non-notable individuals. These princesses are not individually notable and it is not our business to make sure that a princess married a baron and produced a baroness who died after two or three weeks. Seriously though, George V's article has a space for issue. That is the only place these two princesses belong on Wikipedia until something ground-breaking or notable comes to light. Charles 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One - royalty is notable. Two - but they do exist, see here, here and here to start, i'm sure there is more off internet. Three - every deletion creates the danger something wont get replaced for fear of a speedy (aka why bother). This Article would be out of place in the Parent article, being 'off topic'. Four - And your asking for more respect when you make comments like that about a dead person? Please be civil, even about the dead. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Royalty as a group/class is notable. Individual royals are not always notable. Those books only note genealogical date (who she married) and a room she lived in (kind of like a phonebook). And no, it is not out of place in the parents' article. The articles of notable people discuss their lives and having children is part of that. Also, "dirt nap" is not an uncivil comment, it is about death itself, certainly not about the princesses' characters at that. Passing mention in a book does not render one to be notable. The given biographies I see as well only mention her as company or entourage of other people. Charles 09:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Insignificant princess" seems a contradiction in terms to me. I daresay the Times and Telegraph etc covered her passing at the time. The Guardian has a free twenty four hour pass to its archives at the moment, perhaps her obituary could be found there and used as a source to show notability through coverage? Nick mallory 11:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep (changed opinion since as per Monsieurdl below, there are sources to expand the article about Frederica after all) - While even google finds some press coverage, e.g. [21] (each time you delete cookies, it let's you read 2 or 3 of the articles for free), I'm really not sure you need to devote an entire article to each of them when the only possible thing to write is "she was a princess". --Minimaki 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Her father was George V of Hanover, therefore making her a Princess and most certainly a person of note. This article can be expanded as there is more than sufficient primary and secondary source documents of published works. The reasoning for deletion has no basis whatsoever- searching Google web is but one resource, and you cannot say that she cannot be found in any books or it is just genealogical.
The Works of Alfred Lord Tennyson, TO PRINCESS FREDERICA ON HER MARRIAGE.
The New Hazell Annual and Almanack, 1887:
Hanover, Princess Frederlca of. Baroness [Har von Pawel-Rammingen, eldest daughter of the ate King George V of Hanover, was b. 1848, In at Hanover. Langensalza sealed the fate of the kingdom of Hanover, and King George was obliged to take refuge in Austria, the Princess filled the duties of a secretary and amanuensis throughout her father's lifetime, he being blind. She accompanied him on his visit to England in 1876. After the death of the king (in 1878) she married Baron von Pawel-Rammingen, who became a naturalised English subject by an Act of Parliament passed for the purpose. Since her marriage and residence in this country the Princess Frederica of Hanover has obtained general favour by her genial and affable disposition, as well as by the interest she has displayed in benevolent objects, more especially in connection with institutions estabisned for the welfare of the blind.
Radziwill, Catherine. The Royal Marriage Market of Europe, 1915:
PRINCESS FREDERICA OF HANOVER
The Duke of Cumberland has one sister, the accomplished and charming Princess Frederica of Hanover, whose marriage was quite a romance. She was one of the first of the German Royal princesses to wed a commoner. She became betrothed to the Baron de Pawel-Rammingen, a fact which created a terrible scandal when first it became known to her family. Her brother was particularly excited, and it is even probable that she would never have been able to carry her wishes through had it not been for Queen Victoria, who, ever kind in regard to her relatives, came to her help. She supported the Princess, who was a favourite of hers, and allowed her to get married at Windsor, even consenting to grace the ceremony by her presence. Rumour added that the Queen contributed in a most generous manner to the welfare of the Princess Frederica, in order to make up for what the Duke of Cumberland refused to give to his sister, to whom he granted a dowry which was quite insufficient for her to live upon. The Princess Frederica lives for most of the year at Biarritz, where she has built for herself a lovely villa, and where she has made herself most popular. Her marriage has turned out very happily, and she has never had occasion to repent the choice she made, nor to regret the energy she displayed in resisting all opposition to it.

She was directly involved in aiding her father in his rule and she was much involved in community affairs representing the House of Hanover. NOTE: Her father was blind since youth, not due to old age. I rest my case.

Monsieurdl 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, also per WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiritual Center of the Muslim Communities

edit
The Spiritual Center of the Muslim Communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. Google yields nine hits, eight of which are wikipedia or mirror sites. The other site is a commercial site which asserts no notability of the subject. Decoratrix 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga City Council

edit
Mississauga City Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even if the town is notable by default, the current town council probably isnt notable Mbisanz 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was not familiar with that category. Just that in articles about municipalities, even supervisors/mayors are usually not notable. By virtue, a town council wouldn't be either. And given frequent elections, it would be difficult to maintain for a large number of towns/cities. Mbisanz 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mississauga is the 6th largest municipality in Canada with a population > 600,000. It would rank 17th in the U.S., 1st in Ireland, 2nd in New Zealand, 6th in Australia and 3rd in England (I couldn't find U.K. stats). A Canadian city's failure to field its own NHL team does not deprive its council of notability -- just prestige. (As a consolation prize, they do have their own snake, albeit misspelled) --A. B. (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I agree with your reasoning, just a small correction about the comparison with Australia. To compare apples with apples, you should be comparing against this table, which lists municipalities (Local Government Areas in Australian terminology) in which case Mississauga City Council would rank 2nd in Australia.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't dispute that Mississauga City is a very notable city and should have an article. What I dispute is that the town council of Mississauga City is notable enough to have an article. y analogy would be that McDonalds is a very notable corporation, but the Board of Directors of McDonalds, in and of itself, isn't notable. Mbisanz 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, this article very clearly meets the notability guideline. Second, it's one of the older Wikipedia articles -- 3 years old -- and it's been edited by multiple, experienced editors during that time. Third, there are 50 other articles about various city councils all across Canada. I just don't see any precedent or guideline out there that encourages or even supports deletion -- am I missing something? Is there a way in which this content is not encyclopedic? --A. B. (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of this guideline in nominating this article: [[24]]. The city of Mississauga is a notable city, the concept of City Councils in Canadian Cities may be notable. The oldest, newest, largest, town councils in Canada might be notable. Even a town council that did something odd, like legalizing the hunting of an endnagered species or restricting voting to people who lived there so many years, could be notable. But as far as I can tell, this town council has not done anything notable. And yes I do see that it is the largest town with a majority female council. But considering the election was a year ago, and there aren't any sources or discussion of this being odd, I' not convinced it is.
Really it could be renamed Government in Mississauga, Ontario and incorporate the list of mayors, ridings, and MYAC that is on the main article page.Mbisanz 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual city councillors rarely merit their own articles, except in certain special circumstances (Dar Heatherington remains the canonical example), but for major cities a single article about the council body is a perfectly reasonable thing to have. Keep, but merge everybody except Hazel McCallion (the mayor) and Carolyn Parrish (a former federal Member of Parliament) back into the council's article. Bearcat 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gretsch 6136

edit
Gretsch 6136 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's already a Gretsch White Falcon page. Delete, then redirect. JSC ltd 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, you won't delete, then redirect, you would simply redirect. In this case however, the 6136 and the White Falcon are not the same thing. The White Falcon is but ONE variant of the 6136. Do a simple find on the official Gretsch guitar model page and see how many OTHER variants of the 6136 there are: [25]. --Deon Steyn 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitat

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

Pulled this out of speedy after a polite, reasoned e-mail from the creator. I take the point of the speedy nominator but think AfD is more appropriate, especially given available evidence of notability. Dppowell 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modified the copy to align it more with the guidelines and conventions of Wikipedia. Added additional industry references and an additional trade journal reference to help establish and support credibility and notability. Please advise if there are other problematic sections of copy that need editing. Please compare this entry with existing Wikipedia entry Worldchanging as both organizations are very similar in nature and notability. Marc Alt 9:55 EST 9 November 2007


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

The result was keep. John254 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project

edit
Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable city program Chris! ct 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This organization is actually notable. I happen to know because I happen to be a member of this organization, which has been featured as a community hero over at Crissy Field (I think it's still there...), but, you probably never heard of it. It's been featured in the Chronicle (I think) twice, so people know about this youth organization, and it is a good club that can get people into college. I am not starting that article just for the spam thing, in fact, I do not intend to spam anyone here in Wikipedia, because that's what I do not do. So, anyway, I would like to tell you in a lengthy reply on how the AAA is notable, but, you probably know that Norman Fong started it in the 1990s as a recruitment for High School students (there's even a video of that in Youtube!), because back then people simply didn't give a care about the alleyways in Chinatown, nor were they even officially recognized as city streets. So, that's how it started, and we usually clean up every 2nd Saturday of the month, and they even run the Chinatown Alleyway Tours, which is a hit to tourists, and has been featured in Bay Area Backroads one time. That's how notable it is. Just saying. :) -Goodshoped 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait. Actually, keep. -Goodshoped 05:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable and verifiable. Maybe the nominator should perform some "due diligence" before nominating. A Google search is all it took for me to see all the references to it in reliable sources, and it only took me a nanosecond. I am sure more time was spent nominating the article, than it took me to prove it was notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment To say that this city program is notable is problematic on your part. A google search only comes up with 70 hits, which is extremely low for it to be encyclopedic. Also there are virtually thousands (if not millions) of such small city programs in the world. We as an encyclopedia should not include them since most of them aren't notable. Even if a program is notable, put that somewhere in the city article, not as a standalone article. Chris! ct 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or 747 hits if you perform the search properly as I did here: [26], which is an order of magnitude higher. Just two good articles are all that is needed to be "multiple independent coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the 700 ghits don't impress me. As I say, there are thousands of such programs, and they are non notable. Chris! ct 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats a silly reason and poor logic. There are 6 billion people on Earth, the sheer number has nothing to do with deciding which ones are notable and which are not. Somehow out of 6 billion living people, we have tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia on living people. Notability is conferred by the media when they write about the people or the organizations. The Wikipedia test is that they have "multiple independent coverage in reliable sources". My guess is that you are using your gut instinct, instead of research to determine what you nominate. In the end you just bring more attention to the articles you want to get rid of. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if this afd bring more attention to this article, then so be it. My goal here is to improve Wikipedia. More attention to this article can certainly improve it beyond the previous version. But I do think that this article is not notable, and a few ghits are not going to change that. Chris! ct 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, even with references, this article is non notable. Verifiability doesn't automatically make articles notable. Chris! ct 23:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. It is notable, the creator, Norman Fong, is notable, CCDC is notable, and I know this is because I happen to be a member of this organization. -Goodshoped 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oaksterdam

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

The article looks like WP:OR and lack of reliable sources Chris! ct 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete for lack of any sources. Sandstein 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Galvin

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

No assertion of notability; no verifiable third-party references. Biruitorul 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Biruitorul is making a fair point. But I'd like to see a page with a lot of information be saved rather than deleted.

I can't really help because I don't know anything on the subject, but if we place some banners on the page, maybe that would be a better solution to deleting the page. Just my thoughts! Jc4k 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is actually a notable character. If we delete this page we must proceed to delete thousands of less notable characters from books, cartoons, movies plays etc. Granted many should be deleted, but dont start with a truly notable character from a notable author. Decoratrix 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of this is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which should be avoided. The rest relies on another argument to avoid, WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes, I suppose Matthew Pearl is notable. That doesn't automatically make any of his characters "truly notable". This even applies to the greatest English-language playwright, by the way: we have (many) articles on Hamlet because, well, just look at the bibliography. We do not have articles on the various servants, soldiers, attendants and other minor characters who populate his plays, because critics have not considered it worthwhile to write about them. Until references are brought forward, that remains the case with regard to Benjamin Galvin as well. Biruitorul 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was} delete, WP:ILIKEIT argument disregarded. Sandstein 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssips iced tea

edit
Ssips iced tea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references, no assertion of notability. Just another product, and smacks of advertising as well. Biruitorul 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. No consensus for a redirect. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset (Warriors)

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

If you take out the plot summary (which is about 4-5 paragraphs) and the "other" information which is also just part of the plot, you have one sentence and an infobox. Nothing in here demonstrates how this meets the notability guidelines of WP:BK through reliable, secondary sources. Metros 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 23:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista editions and pricing

edit
Windows Vista editions and pricing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone availability, sales, and pricing, also violates WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a sale catalog. This belongs to Microsoft, not Wikipedia. Chris! ct 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I intentionally did not nominate this article for AFD, but removed all the pricing info instead. If a few days went by, I would have moved the article to Windows Vista editions, which is where the information should belong. As the article currently stands (without the pricing info) it should be renamed, not deleted. shoy (words words) 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a WP:SUMMARY-style expansion from Windows Vista. -/- Warren 04:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect now that the info is moved to Windows Vista editions. The pricing goes stale very quickly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it was there initially but the mess MS has created with so many editions that differentiating them bloats the article out of control. As such it was split out. --soum talk 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Gene

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

Non-notable fictional curse from a videogame. I tried merging this to the main Tekken article as the WP:FICT guidelines state, but the content was rejected. No real-world context, no notability, no evidence that this subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Masaruemoto 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg

edit
Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable duchess. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Duchess Marie, while a princess of a grand ducal family, has no notable achievements. Titles do not automatically confer notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Although families as a whole might be notable (such as the House of Mecklenburg), individuals members may not be, such as Duchess Marie. Duchess Marie's article is a pure genealogical entry and violates WP:NOT 2.6, Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Note also that other royals are not automatically notable on the basis of their titles. Charles 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm leaning delete on the basis that this was a created title that did not survive her (her father was a grand duke whose title did continue with her brother). I suggest a merge to either her father's article or the family/house article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title was not created for her, she was born a duchess. In Germany, all children of a male noble or royal are nobles or royal themselves. Think about it as a traditionally inherited surname that comes from the father. It is, however, not a unique position and not notable unless one is a ruler (she was not, just a princess) or has done something notable. Charles 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep and redirect to father's page The NY Times references are sufficient to establish notability: [28], [29] (better link here[30]), [31]. Thanks to the editor who contributed the references to the article (and to the NY Times for making so much available on-line). JJL 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC) JJL 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the big whomp, just clean it up a bit and delete it. It's fine to have short articles. It's not like it's wasting paper, it's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.196.130 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to father's page as JJL stated. She must be mentioned there. Monsieurdl 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nominator clearly hasn't done any research about this lady. If he had, he would have seen that there were two articles in the New York Times about her marriage (at the time it was not common for the daughter of a reigning sovereign to marry morganatically), and a further two about her divorce. Her marriage was also covered in The Times (which also mentions her in passing in several other articles). If one looks in German-language newspapers, one finds even more references. Noel S McFerran 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, where are these articles? Marriage announcements were not sufficient to keep other princesses and divorces are only of passing interest. Indeed, all of what you had just said could very well be included in the "issue" section of her father's article. Charles 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Charles had done any research about this lady (or bothered to look at the articles about her), then he would know that this lady is important because of the things which happened in her own life. She is one of the few princesses of her time known to have conceived a child out of wedlock. The affair which her husband had with Infanta Eulalia of Spain is notorious and is covered in detail in the article by Ricardo Sainz de Medrano in Royalty Digest. Then there's the fact that Marie's husband killed her brother. The whole thing is something of a cause celebre. What this article needs is expansion, not deletion. I'm perfectly willing to do it; but please don't go on asking for this article to be deleted. Noel S McFerran 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like her husband should have an article to me. Charles 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Charles is being humorous. There was an article about Marie's husband until today when it was speedily deleted. I leave it to others to surmise who might have nominated it. Noel S McFerran 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious, actually. And no, there was not an article about Marie's husband until today, there was an article about Marie's son until today, and yes, I did nominate it. Charles 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not up to the nominator to do research beyond reading what's in the article. The page as it stood at the time of nomination did not establish any notability, which is enough to justify deletion. Now that Noel S McFerran has done such sterling work by expanding the article and providing references I make it a Strong keep. Phil Bridger 11:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to father as above. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep now notability has been established by Mcferran. - dwc lr 12:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete/merge as nominator. I still do not see notability, only life events of passing interest for a non-notable individual which are not of wide significance. Charles 17:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, I see much that happened around her, but while I appreciate he improvements made to the article it's still difficult to see her individual notability. However, the several NY Times articles listed appear, from the titles, to focus on her and her husband; perhaps the only interest in them was their noble status, but this may establish that they were considered notable at the time. It may be worth looking more deeply into those. JJL 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merely saying (repeatedly) that somebody is not notable doesn't make it so. One would have to provide evidence, e.g. that the individual is not mentioned in any books or articles. That is not the case with this individual. There are multiple newspaper and journal articles specifically about Marie (not about her father and just mentioning Marie). That's enough to show Wikipedia:Notability ("Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.") Marie is not only notable, she is downright famous: a princess who conceived out of wedlock after a possibly forced encounter with a servant and married morganatically to a man who later killed her teenage brother in a duel. Noel S McFerran 18:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not say coverage is substantial enough or that she was downright famous. Facts of only passing interest at best. There is probably more reason for articles on Duke Charles Borwin and Count Georges de Jametel then there is for an article on Duchess Marie. Mention of someone does not make them notable and it is incorrect to say that proof of no mention is what is needed. Again, an example of someone who is a member of a notable family, but not notable. Charles 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per my modified opinion up top, I do believe that she would be considered notable. The articles list her name first and speak about her as though readers could reasonably be familiar with her. This is a keep. JJL 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not try to tell people what they are allowed to think printed words are really intended to accomplish, unless you have reason to know that the words are your own.Lethiere 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of opponents of PETA

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people, being an opponent of PETA isn't a defining characteristic so this is a loose association to group people by. Also, only seven names on the list which could easily be mentioned in one sentence of the main article. I haven't nominated the related List of supporters of PETA, but if there's a consensus for deleting here then I'll AFD that one as well. Masaruemoto 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was turned into a redirect to a pre-existing article which now offers sufficient sourcing. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and the wolf (band)

edit
Peter and the wolf (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-released band. Article created by single-purpose account. Album has indeed been reviewed on Pitchfork, but their other 3 references are to the band's own pages (including, you guessed it, a Myspace page). Probably fails WP:N, probably even fails WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argh - you've just confused the crap out of me. Now I'm AfDing a redirect? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs rewritten, but definitely a keeper - I find a bunch of other refs for the band[32] [33] [34] [35] in a few different places, and on NPR; a Pitchfork ref refers to a country-wide tour. I think it's covered by WP:MUSIC, though as usual I'd be more comfortable with albums from notable labels. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - There certainly is no label notability, and a number of those sources seem like internet entertainment sites that you'd expect any band to apply to for tour support promo. BUT, since they have had a couple small features on ABC and NPR's websites, if somebody wants to suggest that those 2 are sufficient and volunteer to clean up the article using those sources, I'll happily apologize and withdraw my nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also - I have added the sources brought up in this AfD to the "external links" section of the article, and tagged it with "cleanup". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw by nom - I doubt anyone will ever volunteer to clean up the article, but at least it's got some semi-decent sources that some could argue prove notability... the edit to a redirect also messes things up for the AfD. Withdraw, and sorry for the waste of time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NBA All-Star Game

edit
2010 NBA All-Star Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:Crystal since not much is known about this future event, suggest deletion and redirect back to the main page. Chris! ct 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Foulkes

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

A former trainee soccer player at a professional club, Grimsby Town, in England, who played regularly for the reserve side but was released by the club in September without ever playing for the first team and is now without a club. Fails the WP:BIO guideline of having played in a fully professional league. Malcolmxl5 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X pricing

edit
Mac OS X pricing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone availability, sales, and pricing, consensus seems to be that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog. In addition, this article seems to state that it is entirely original research on the part of the author. If someone wants prices on Apple products, they should be visiting Apple's website, not Wikipedia. shoy (words words) 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic stir-fry

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

Community radio show lacking any notability. Apparently originally created as an advert. Masaruemoto 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Shirō Emiya

edit

The result was keep. Rudget zŋ 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had tagged this article on November 4th for its notability, in universe context, and its excessive plot summary. The tags were removed and notability is still not established per the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT and the article is still a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) without any real world context established. I suspect these are issues that the editors cannot resolve so they simply removed the tags. Pilotbob 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your last statement shows a failure to assume good faith. Furthermore, your assumption that editors cannot resolve the problem is likely false, seeing as there's simply a lack of editors who edit the topic in question on a regular basis. Asking at the main page (Fate/stay night), mentioning it in the talk page of the article, or people who have significantly edited the article in the past would have been suitable. Simply adding the tags does not bring visibility to the article. In any case, keep as the protagonist of a major video game in Japan, who is subsequently then present in an anime, manga, and various spinoffs of the original game. I'm certain sources can be found to establish notability. Cleanup is necessary per WP:WAF, but that is not a reasoning for deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking for myself the removal of tags for notability is pretty much asking for the article to be brought to AFD, and the editor who removed them without an edit summary or a justification on the Talk page is more worthy of criticism. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, yes, that does appear to be the case. However, the nominator's assumption that this is due to an inability to find sources to establish notability is likely false. Given that the user in question (User:Zerokitsune) has only ~900 edits, this can be attributed more to inexperience rather than any actual malice. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirei Kotomine

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

I had tagged this article on November 4th for its notability, in universe context, and its excessive plot summary. The tags were removed and notability is still not established per the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT and the article is still a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) without any real world context established. I suspect these are issues that the editors cannot resolve so they simply removed the tags. Pilotbob 01:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish film score composers

edit
List of Turkish film score composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Replication of a category RMHED 00:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Realist

edit
I'm a Realist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A song by Wakefield band The Cribs! They performed it on Later with Jools Holland in May 2007! Fails WP:N and WP:HOLE. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I think the band might themselves be notable; however, I can't see specific notabiliy for this song, beyond its having been performed on a broadcast. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choudenshi Bioman

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

I had tagged this article on November 4th for its excessive plot summary, lack of sources, and lack of a real world context. The tags were removed. Notability is not established per the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT, there are still no sources, and the article is still a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) without any real world context established. Pilotbob 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (Fate/stay night)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Assassin (Fate/stay night) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had tagged this article on November 4th for its notability and its excessive plot summary. The tags were removed and notability is still not established per the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT and the article is still a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) without any real world context established. Pilotbob 00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose you meant secondary sources, otherwise your argument falls apart. Furthermore, I never contested the fact that the article is very in-universe and thus would have difficulty satisfying WP:FICT. I merely stated that the nominator is making a false assumption by stating that a lack of changes four days after he placed tags on the article for cleanup implies that there will never be changes to provide examples of the article's notability, which is naturally false. Anyhow, per WP:FICT, merging is preferable to deletion, which the nominator should have pursued before bringing the article to an AfD. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are failing to distinguish between characters that likely are notable (Shiro, Saber, Archer) from characters that aren't notable (Saber, Lancer, True Assassin, Zoken Mato, etc.). The former are articles that likely can acquire sufficient sources to satisfy WP:FICT, while the rest should be part of the relevant character list. And remember that WP:NOT#PAPER is not a blanket reason to ignore notability guidelines. It simply refutes the implication that an article should not be created because there's no room on Wikipedia, which is naturally false. It is not a "keep" argument in a deletion discussion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite plant food

edit
Dynamite plant food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article reads like an advertisement. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP, no third-party sources. Below what level is a plant food non-notable? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Osborne

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

Apparently non-notable figure. This reeks of a hoax (look at various versions in the history, and the ever-changing photograph, for example). Even if one accepts it as genuine, there's an almost as powerful whiff of a vanity page - albeit not quite enough to warrant an A7. He has never competed at the highest level and has no apparent sporting or academic achievements. — iridescent 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre Tribe Org

edit
Ogre Tribe Org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had tagged this article for notability on October 26th. The tag was removed and notability is still not established from secondary reliable sources per WP:FICT. Additionally, this is a plot summary with no real world context, see WP:NOT#PLOT. If reliable sources were available, I'm sure they would have been added instead of the tag simply being removed. Pilotbob 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is a list of characters from a notable television series. I had found secondary sources that mention them, and they are therefore notable due to WP:FICT. The plot summary can be fixed by cutting out said content. This is the seventh particular article in the area that you have put up for deletion and it is getting really tiring now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ryulong. Both a bad faith nom and a further lack of willingness to properly review a topic before deletion. It requires cleanup by any number of methods (preferably debulleting and a bit more context) but not deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Valid content fork from Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger, if Ryulong's secondary sources are added. Needs about 3 kilograms of cleanup in addition to sourcing, but it seems to pass WP:FICT's notability requirements. Failing to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT is not a valid deletion criteria -- it's a cleanup criteria. (And a comment: according to WP:FICT, the first step after failing to find sources would be to try merging this into Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger, not jumping straight to AfD. It would be nice if editors held themselves to the same guideline that they wave at articles.) —Quasirandom 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These characters aren't notable by themselves; appearing on a popular show does not establish notability. Substantial third party references do, and there are none here. Nobody's writing research papers on these guys, as they would with characters like Tom Sawyer or Holden Caulfield or Howard Roark. -- Mikeblas 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I would like to switch my vote to abstain at this time due to this investigation WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. Pilotbob —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ryulong. The large number of articles tagged by the nominator and the short amount of time before they were moved to AfD is overwhelming any reasonable attempt to improve them. Edward321 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the comments by Someguy0830 designed to discredit the nominator are uncivil and unsupported by any evidence, and should be struck from the record. This article has no primary sources, so verifiication or cleanup is virtually impossible; there is no record of where this material has been copied and pasted from. Secondly, this material is heavily in universe and hence fails WP:NOT#PLOT; there is nothing in this article worth salvaging. Lastly, the points raised by the nominator Pilotbob are totally valid; this article has no real-world notability, as there are no reliable sources to distinguish this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 12:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hepburn

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

Non-notable, notability is not inherited. Corvus cornix 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Built for Stomping

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

1990's industrial music compilation. I don't see much here that asserts this compilation CD's notability, other than just having tracks by various bands. Article is orphaned. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Like You

edit
Pale Like You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band from San Francisco. Links to band page and myspace page, created by single purpose account, no sources, most likely spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World famous American sportsmen

edit
World famous American sportsmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

How do you definitively decide if someone is World famous? RMHED 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Docg 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Markski

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

Article on a DJ who's done a bunch of mixes, as well as DJing in Chicago and on 9FM. No sources, seems vandalized, link to myspace page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment well, doing an exact phrase match search, the first 100 hits I got back were his webpages, myspaces, bit torrents, and so forth. Maybe the Amazon.com listing for one of his mix CDs is proof that he exists, but a quick check through the long list of self-promo and blogs didn't find me any reliable sources in that first 100 that could move the article beyond original research or unverifiability or non-neutral point of view. Has he been written about in reliable sources independent of the subject? You know, been interviewed in magazines, written about in a book on the Chicago DJ scene? I'm happy to be proven wrong. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? SolidPlaid 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that having tracks available for download on yahoo makes him notable. I've also done a search at Google Books, and all I could find was the Markski who worked with Kid Frost in Latin Alliance. This isn't the same Markski. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wait, so you guys deleted this page just because he isn't a nationwide popular dj? wow. he has been doing this for 20 years here in chicago, and was big on b96 back in the day and energy 92.7/5, and now he's on dance factory radio. he has 50 ski mixes for god sake. so that's how wikipedia works? if somebody isn't popular enough, they don't go in wikipedia? he isn't some random little dj, at least not here in the 3rd biggest city in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentBob420BMFJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Middle School (Florida)

edit
Pioneer Middle School (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not notable - article has existed for quite some time with no references are notability established, and the tone of the article needs work. Arthur 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero Factor

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

Page on an indie band, created by an almost-single-purpose account (he did do one unrelated edit). The two links are to the band's webpage and the band's myspace page. Band plays in Tulsa. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Twins

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

probable hoax. The word "Black" is not found in any of the four references, the names Janíra and Jerínye have less than 10 Google hits each, all to Blog sites of two girls with Harry Potter-related themes, and the structure of this article and many of the phrases are copies from James and Oliver Phelps, the only other page the contributor has edited. If it's not a hoax, then the subjects are insuffiently notable anyway. I started with a prod, which was contested. Please see the article's talk page. I hate to hassle the poor newbie, but the article just should not be here.-Arch dude 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Whether or not it's a hoax is pretty much a moot point, as there's not even a sliver of notability to be found anywhere here, unless one counts such things as being "seen in the audience" at various concerts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am working with the original contributor, who now understands the problems. Please do not delete the article until the contributor can create a user space version. I have copied the article to a user workspace on behalf of the contributor. The user believes that notability can be established, but has agreed that the article should be removed (without prejudice, I pray) until it in shape for inclusion. -Arch dude 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Delete I'm the original writer of this page and I think it should be deleted until I've got the details and references fixed up. Thanks! -Softlygoesme 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.166.151 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete per Arch dude KNyholm 11:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoshuaZ 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smokers Die Younger

edit
Smokers Die Younger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had deleted this article by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion in September, and was asked to restore it by the article's principal author. The original reason for the PROD was "Non-notable band, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)". I'm not convinced the subject band passes Wikipedia:Notability (music), but there is a claim of notability, so I have brought it to AfD. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any notability established, and a quick web search mostly found sites created/managed by them. I didn't see anything from a third-party WP:RS. Arthur 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Props to Fly for recognizing assertion of notability. However, WP:BAND is failed. the_undertow talk 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Try looking on the article's talk page for third-party evidence of notability. I listed some there a year ago, when this page was last marked for deletion, and it was accepted. I have now added further evidence. The band clearly passes on a number of the notability criteria. The policy only requires that they pass on one! Oh, and my quick google search found reviews of their work on all manner of sites they have nothing to do with. Dr Jon 10:20, 9 November 2007 (GMT)
Which part of WP:BAND is satisfied? the_undertow talk 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1, 5, 7, and 10. See under the Discussion tab on the article. --- Dr Jon 12:50, 10 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment The lack of sources and links here is a problem. It is noted that "Golf" is a former member of 65daysofstatic, but not who "Golf" is (see 65daysofstatic's page). There is a lack of proof and a lack of other sources which say anything notable about the band. Who are the Balor Knights? What is the Electric Blanket? Why should I care? The creator has failed to establish notability through proper sourcing, but there still may be potential. However, I doubt the band has the notability to cite (I won't jump to conclusions, though: it's the creator's turn to show his hand or fold). --Anon 121.209.160.15 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The creator is bemused. His hand is thoroughly shown under the article's Discussion tab, as he keeps pointing out. Is the complaint simply that more of this should be put in the main article itself? Since most of it refers to print media rather than web media, this seems somewhat tricky. Dr Jon 16:53, 9 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Print articles can also be cited as long as they are from real, notable sources and can be verified (i.e. are reliable sources). Comment below by Nothing Short has the right idea: sources need to be cited to establish notability -- anyone can release a record, for example. All Music Guide has nothing but a shell for the band ([37]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.15 (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment External links and items on notability, etc. will be added over the weekend. Indeed the page will be considerably overhauled. Since originally being written there are a number of citations with relation to the band's position in popular culture to be added. Connections to which will be made explicit. Nothing short 17:03, 9 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Weak Keep. Having reviewed the information, I believe nobility is established (albeit weakly). As much as I don't like admitting it, as it could easily be just a fluke (a television programme on local bands and some fashion designer who just happens to like them), they still pass WP:BAND by criterion 1 given the information provided. --Anon 121.209.160.15 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed, nominator did not mean to list here, just removed a prod. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Makes a Family

edit
What Makes a Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed a notability prod. Had a cast that included Brooke Shields and Whoopi Goldberg, and had news coverage, so doesn't look to me like it fails. CitiCat ♫ 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

erm, there's no need for you to start an AfD then, simply removing the prod, maybe improving the article yourself, is all that's needed.:)Merkinsmum 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Also, Wikipedia doesn't "have to delete every single mod or add-on or any kind of games realted [sic] expansions from all languages of wikipedia" based on this outcome. "Ask[ing] to have more than 1000 articles deleted from wikipedia" would likely lead to a WP:POINT block. — Scientizzle 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Chronicles (SW: JKA)

edit
Star Wars Chronicles (SW: JKA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft, Original research, Sources are questionable at best VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stay I dont get it why this topic gets to be deleted, it is perfectly offical with no copyright violation, i demand to know why so i can fix it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selman akinci (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count at least two copyright violations in the picture alone, possibly four or more, and a bunch of trademark violations too! But hey, who's counting? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, i looked at it again, there cxant be any copyright violations since i created the picture and i wrote the info....
      • Comment: That said, there doesn't appear to be any copyvio in the article itself. There are other arguments for deleting the article, but let's not confuse articles with media in them. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, but the statement that the article is "offical with no copyright violation" is misleading bordering on outright dishonest. This is not an offical LucasArts product, and the article does contain improper use of copyrighted works by way of the picture. Neither is a primary factor in this particular deletion, but to allow such comments to stand without refutation wouldn't be right either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete first of all, video game mod patches are almost never notable. Second, this one isn't even complete yet(!) and third, it isn't even very far along, with the article claiming someone got the idea for it just a few weeks ago (!!!). Oh, yeah, and no reliable sources either. Finally, the text itself would never pass as an encyclopedia article, including gems such as "the most incredible and fantastic saga ever" and "Star Wars will never die, it will follow in us". And there was a great disturbance in the wiki, as if millions of editors rolled their eyes and snickered... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most computer game mods are not notable, the vast majority that start work are never finished. This is not finished, no where near. If it ever gets completed (as I said the majority don't) then reconsider based on third party coverage but until then it should be removed as advertising spam. Oh and kill that image as well, the copyright notice attached to it is bunk as they obviously don't have permission to take movie stills and promotional photos, splice them together and pass them off as non-copyrighted work. Ben W Bell talk 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stay Well you know turkish, french, spanish wikipedia accept mods, i tought why not english, even though wikipedia is not trying to be like google this info doesnt hurt anyone, and main reaseon i put this here was to help people, i didnt put it just to have fun,... I really think it is peoples right to put in any appropirate info here. read this if you said delete Tukish, spanish, french, and some other languages accept this kind of content since wikipedia is one company even though it has diffrent moderators for diffrent languages english should accept too. WP:ALLORNOTHING so if you delete this article you have to delete every single mod or add-on or any kind of games realted expansions from all languages of wikipedia. If you delete this it is my right to ask to have more than 1000 articles deleted from wikipedia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.62.51 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay You say most mods or games are not notable..... but i believe an encylopedia needs to have many info an encylopedia shouldnt be just only science or jistory, it should have every subject, we should be able to look at it and find whatever information we need to find, there are games in wikipedia, why cant there be mods? This is a very countable information since many people search for mods in wikipedia too,... I believe wikipedia should be something like google, an ecylopedia with notable info but you should be able to find or write an info to help people regardless of the topic..
    • We've heard that one before... so often, in fact, that we have a specific page just to address it: see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. And no, we're not trying to be like Google, not by a long shot. Wikipedia is, by a wide margin, the most inclusive encyclopedia in human history... but we're definitely not trying to include absolutely everything: Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, and Google is a web search engine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients in coca cola

edit
Ingredients in coca cola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Large amounts of Original Research with no sources listed. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panelplane

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

Borderline speedy. This is about a product which isn't even for sale, and the only reference is a free e-Book by the guy who wrote the article who is also the guy who made the foam plane. There does not appear to be any coverage of the panel plane in reliable sources independent of the subject. <eleland/talkedits> 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's not notable enough. Additionally, Googling it fails to yield anything substantial. Mouchoir le Souris 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_9&oldid=1081101334"