Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as a test page by User:Reedy Boy (non-admin close) --jonny-m t 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPTestpage with 'speci*l characters

testpage with special characters Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, sources found, article expanded. --B (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Cowne

(Contested prod) This person was a reserve longsnapper/center for the Washington Redskins for a grand total of THREE GAMES during ONE SEASON twenty years ago. He is now a teacher and the assistant coach of a high school JV football team. There is no hope of ever having an article that is more than a stub about him - the only sources that exist are lists that list every single pro football player ever. The only thing this article has received since it was created was some pretty vicious vandalism. If we cannot create an article that is more than two sentences stating he exists (and we can't and never will be able to) then there is no need to have it. --B (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He played in the NFL, therefore he is notable per WP:BIO. matt91486 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you're concerned about recurring vandalism, perhaps try WP:Protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please add the information you found about the details of his NFL career. It seems to be missing from the article. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy was in the NFL, played for the Redskins. Is notable. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, it can't be expanded. It will never be more than a few sentences because there is nothing else to say. He played three games as an emergency center. If he were a skill position (WR, QB, RB, TE) or a defensive player, we might be able to add a paragraph summarizing statistics, but that isn't even available. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Professional athletes who have played at least one game at their sport's highest level are generally considered notable. The vandalism is unfortunate, but it's no reason to delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, yes. But the general notability guideline specifies that a subject needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. But there is only trivial coverage in this case - all we know is that he is included in lists of all football players. WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is key here - the fact that he existed, was a center, and his other general roster information should be included in an article about the 1987 Washington Redskins (which doesn't exist yet, but should). There is no good reason to have a separate article about individuals on whom there is no information available for writing an article. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would recommend going to WP:RFPP for persistent vandalism, since he made it to the NFL be it three games or not, passes WP:BIO setting a benchmark for how many games a professional national televised athlete must play in would be a matter of changing Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria notability guidelines which would have to be brought up there and agreed upon, which if it was I believe would be a mistake.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what purpose it serves to have an article that will never be expanded beyond a few sentences? That's the whole point behind the general notability guideline - if there is enough to write an article, we write it, if there isn't, we don't. --B (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why you don't think it can be expanded. The details of what happened in his NFL career can be added, like the circumstances of why he was signed in the first place. As can highlights of his college career. This won't be that easy to find, newspapers from the early 80s aren't easy to find online, but if you check the DC papers from that time period, there will be a mention of transactions involving him. NFL players meet notability, period. Every one should, and inevitably (hopefully) will have an article on Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - He was the longsnapper for the Virginia Tech Hokies. In 1987, nobody cared about football at Tech. We were a pretty good basketball school that had been a fixture in the NCAAs under Charles Moir and actually knocked off #1 Memphis State in the 87-88 season under our new coach, but football was that thing you do while waiting for basketball season to start. The Roanoke Times sports editor, Bill Brill, hated Virginia Tech. Newspapers in other parts rarely acknowledged that Tech existed. I seriously doubt anyone was profiling our longsnapper. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep the article and use protection, which hasn't even been tried yet, to deal with vandalism. It's also very presumptuous to say the only possible sources are lists compiling data about pro football players, or that there's nothing else to be said about him. He also apparently played, likely for four years, at a major university, and I'd expect at least some source material exists about his career there. For that matter, if he played for only three games in 1987, it sounds like he was one of the replacement players during the NFLPA strike that year. If so, why isn't this important fact mentioned in the article? (There was even a movie vaguely inspired by the Redskins replacement players, that has to be worth at least a "see also".) --Michael Snow (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can find a reliable source saying that he was a replacement player during the strike, by all means add it. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, here's a 1987 Redskins roster identifying him as one. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete). As for the WP:BIO concerns, while in the current wording, it meets WP:BIO, but fails the sourcing part that is needed for meeting the policy. The only sources found is that he exists and played three games 20 years ago. I checked the Washington Times archives, which only had one very, very trivial mention that he signed a contract in August along with a bunch of other players (which seems to me he wasn't a replacement player), as the strike was later on in the football season. Fails WP:N and WP:RS, and the sourcing part of WP:BIO. Secret ^account 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if he signed a contract in August that probably just means he was in training camp with the team originally, but was cut before the season, then brought back again when the strike happened. A lot of the replacement players were guys like that who hadn't made it, so this was their only opportunity. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was August 28 Secret ^account 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it misleading to say that the James Barker debate produced a consensus, let alone that any consensus from that could be applicable here. For one, you're talking about amateur athletes as opposed to professional athletes, which is a completely different situation. matt91486 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article about the 1987 strike and include this guy's details there (the relevant content, that is), then redirect this. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of replacement players of the 1987 strike would be a good idea, as most of these athletes won't have the proper sourcing for an indiviual article. Secret ^account 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know how badly we need articles like this, but once we have them, we shouldn't delete them. It's a long-standing consensus that a short career in professional leagues justifies a Wikipedia article. There are plenty of entries in Category:American football long snappers. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't help the sourcing issue though. See WP:CCC, anyways most of the long snappers in that category played years and full articles can be created on them Secret ^account 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also have Category:1990 births, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1990 is notable. --B (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shalom. Additionally, as people have stated here, having information on practically everything under the sun is what makes Wikipedia great; if the available information is only enough for a stub, that's fine. Cerebellum (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EVERYTHING Secret ^account 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Contrarily, WP:NOEFFORT. Its being a stub shouldn't hurt it. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources - here, here, and here provide more evidence. The third source could perhaps be questioned, but it seems to be a newspaper columnists' beat report or whatnot, so I think it's sufficiently notable. matt91486 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad, the Roanoke article already got put in. matt91486 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roanoke article, that's an opinion, not a reliable source, as for the other two sources, it proves that the player exists and played and that's it. Secret ^account 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roanoke article's content is opinion based, but it helps to verify his playing at Virginia Tech. As for proving the player exists, isn't that the point? I hardly think it hurts to leave the article as a stub when it so clearly meets the most basic requirements of WP:BIO and also clearly meets the additional requirements of who have competed in a fully professional league. Anyway, if you want a more reliable source, perhaps the Virginia Tech campus newspaper accounts might be helpful. If, as the account in the Roanoke article alleges, Cowne did carry out such a play, it would almost assuredly be mentioned in the game recap in the paper. Just because the source isn't easily available online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. matt91486 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." most of the sources so far are trivial coverage, I also agree with B to email me those sources you found to see if it's enough. Secret ^account 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A search of message boards has alleged that the "USA Today for October 2, 1987" has complete roster information for replacement players for the 1987 NFL strike. That source would obviously come in handy here. For interested parties, that note can be read (link removed). Obviously, this isn't an official source, but it does give his roster number and say where the information can be found, should someone look for it. matt91486 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for commenting so many times in succession. I just decided to go through my University library to look up some stuff on online databases. Cowne is mentioned in a July 28, 1999 article in the Roanoke Times as well. But the more important thing is that Cowne was interviewed in a January 24, 1988 article feature on the Redskins strike replacements in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I'll see what I can do to incorporate these sources in the article as well. I'd give links, but I don't think the articles are visible without being logged into the network. The network is Access World News, if you search "John Cowne" in there, they'll show up pretty easily. matt91486 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, thank you for finding these. Do you have the ability to email the text to the articles to me from your library? (special:emailuser/B, obviously, don't post it on Wikipedia) If so, I'll help with the expansion. Thanks. --B (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used the Wiki e-mail feature before, but I believe I sent the applicable excerpts your way. Let me know if it goes through or not, I copied and pasted the text so I can try resending it. matt91486 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible crisis in Western publishing

This was nominated way back in the day at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Possible crisis in Western publishing. Anyway, it's a small esoteric article and seems like a pretty clear soapbox to me Wafulz (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a soapbox as is, but it does look like critics have addressed these concerns. I would redirect to publishing (to preserve the history) and merge a sentence or two there (probably in the publishing as business section) that cites the sources provided. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:SYN. No redirect necessary - there is no way "possible crisis in western publishing" will be a search term for someone looking for info on publishing that they won't find by looking for publishing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything that can be verified into publishing as suggested. A redirect isn't necessary as the article title isn't really a reasonable search term. The article seems speculative and OR-y, but it seems reasonable that there might be at least one source on it that would warrant the information's mention in another article. One source isn't enough for a topic to have its own article, but it's enough for it to be verifiably mentioned in another. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article on publishing, as it is a POV fork. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not encyclopedic as written and I question if the topic could ever lead to more than an essay. JJL (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to be merged. Everything faces a "possible crisis". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:SD#G11. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.F.E. (company)

contested Prod. Spammish, created by a Single-purpose account (also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?), fails standards of notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ip editor who contested prod also marked article as "b-class" on talk page, when its more like a stub. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is spam and could fall to be speedied per WP:CSD#G11. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Doughty

Non-notable junior player who does not meet notability requirements per WP:N because he has not played professionally yet. Nor has he won any major individual awards or had any other honours that might indicate notability. Can be readded when and if he ever plays professionally. Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He played with the Canadian World Juniors, which is pretty remarkable and is currently a top prospect. Here's a Guelph Mercury article from 2006 about him. If there are more sources, I would say keep, but for now, delete and wait until he gets drafted this summer.-Wafulz (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm changing to keep after finding this national source.-Wafulz (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No doubt that the national junior team is remarkable. But many players who have played on the team over the years are not noteworthy enough for an article yet. In fact one of the more dominant players on the same team as Doughty just was deleted through afd recently. Comes down to it not being the top amateur level of competition. Once he is drafted in the first round or plays pro or earns notability through an award or some such then I have no problem with him coming back. -Djsasso (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a top prospect for the 2008 draft. He is currently projected to go in the top three. I have added a couple of sources for this in the article. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete though he is a top ranked prospect, he is not the top ranked prospect. And as stated, he hasn't won any awards or played professionally. Being on the Canadian junior team isn't enough. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware he won best defenceman at the World Juniors. Still feel article should be deleted, but less so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Doughty was named the best defenceman in the World Juniors. Winning this over players such as Karl Alzner, Jonathon Blum, Ian Cole, Robert Sanguinetti, & Thomas Hickey is an incredible achievement. These players are all older and have already been drafted in the first round of the NHL Entry Draft. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Won a major award at a major international tournament, and is rated as a top-five pick at the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. This article will be recreated anyway in June when he is officially selected high in the first round, so I really don't see great reason to delete it now. Reso lute 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Resolute. Patken4 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a sure fire top 5 draft pick this summer. IrisKawling (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing is sure fire. Angelo Esposito was surefire #1 or #2 pick last year and he almost completely dropped out of the first round. -Djsasso (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, but he still went in the first round, and his article's creation at about the same relative date as this one was justified. Had he went in the 3rd round or later, I'd say otherwise, but let's face it, the ISS and Central Scouting reports are very accurate these days, and it's highly unlikely that a player will fall from #2 to late stages of the draft in a 6 month period, and thus be unworthy of his own article. IrisKawling (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No doubt but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and generally we only keep junior players who were drafted in the first round or won a major award. That being said I did not realize he was named best defenceman at the juniors so I would let it go based on that. -Djsasso (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on deletion of the Stefan Legein article. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a top prospect, projected to go in the top 5 in the NHL Entry draft. Not a comparision to Legein as Legein was a 2nd round draft pick. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan W Janssen

This writer doesn't seem to be notable per WP:BIO Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Absolutely not notable. No awards or major accomplishments. Google search shows up a couple sites, only one of which is a third party source that shows only one book that isn't widely known published by the writer. Tim meh ^contribs 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No sign that this figure meets notability guidelines. Only book, The Plain Truth About God is self-published. The creation of Allanjanssen (talk · contribs), whose most recent edits appear focussed on promoting Allan W Janssen on Wikipedia. Assume a conflict of interest.Victoriagirl (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with opinions above, non-notable and not verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has identified himself as the creator of this article. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of landfills in Hong Kong

I'm just not sure this page is necessary. We do not have lists of landfills in any other locations (although we have categories for landfills, US landfills, and UK landfills) and none of the individual landfills here seem to be notable. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that there are categories for landfills is an indicator that it's not considered a mundane topic-- nor should it be. For those who think that the topic is "boring" Lists of landfills should be thought of as "lists of places that house the tons and tons of garbage we dispose of every day". It doesn't all disappear into thin air. In the case of densely populated, tiny Hong Kong, the problem takes on special significance. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it's mundane. What I am saying is that it seems strange that we should single out Hong Kong when we don't have such a list for any other location.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one is making any claims that this is a boring topic, it's just not necessary. Perhaps if there were articles on each and every landfill in Hong Kong (which I think would be yet another issue), but the items on the list, as HisSpaceResearch notes, just go to short stub articles regarding the city or location of each one. I can't find how this violates WP:LIST, but it surely isn't notable. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. If we listed every landfill on the planet we could account for a lot of garbage, but to what purpose? A large apartment building houses a great number of people who collectively make an enormous impact on their community, but I don't think we'd want a list of every apartment building in Hong Kong (There isn't such a list is there?). Maybe notable landfills, such as the one in Centralia, Pennsylvania that caught fire and caused the town to be abandoned, would make an interesting resource.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful as list because the landfills are unlikely to have enough information for separate articles (and this has date and size information too). I don't know why there aren't similar lists for other places, but I think there should be; see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Compared to (say) apartment buildings, there aren't so many so as to make it unwieldy; many more people contribute to a landfill than live in an apartment building. It's a pity there's no reference but there's probably information that could be found in official documents. I don't see how it violates WP:LIST either, could you cite the part you're referring to? Rigadoun (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has said that it violates WP:LIST so there's nothing to cite. So far all the delete arguments have been based on notability. There are about 10,000 landfill sites in Canada, which would make for an enormous list, but would it be notable as a list? The number of landfills, the volume of garbage, the environmental impact, etc are all (arguably) notable and would make for an interesting entry, but I would still argue that the list in of itself is not notable. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Space Research above wrote "And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST," and I didn't understand what he meant by that. Rigadoun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk

_contribs 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic in my view, and useful for anyone studying the subject. Our lack of similar articles is not a reason for deletion; I would welcome the writing of more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a category would not serve the same purpose, because this incorporates other helpful information about the landfills in table form. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is a directory listing of non-notable landfills. As inappropriate as a list of non-notable apartment buildings, gas stations, or restaurants in Hong Kong. No references to show that the whole collection of landfills in Hong Kong is notable. If the ultimate disposal of refuse is a problem for Hong Kong, that (referenced) fact could be mentioned in the article on the place. A listing of locations does not convey that information. Another issue, if the article is ultimately kept: Lacking references, there is no assurance that the list has not had a few hoax landfills added, or that landfills have not been omitted. Facts in an article must be verifiable and not based on the personal knowledge of the editor, or on some source he did not see fit to cite. Edison (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, mostly. Landfills are generally not important individually, and cat's would serve the same purpose. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is no more or less important than landfills in any other jurisdiction, but not very notable and definitely not sexy. I believe that this should be part of a larger article Waste management in Hong Kong. However, not much appears to be written about the subject of landfills in Hong Kong. Most tends to be frm government sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Poorly written, but not an ad. The Transhumanist 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (non admin closure; endorsed by Kubigula (talk)).[reply]

IBM Rome Software Lab

Procedural nomination; contested CSD. Tagged as CSD for advertising. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is poorly written, by someone with too much marketing experience, but it isn't *that* overly ad-wise. It claims notability clearly within the article as the largest software lab. It needs verification by reliable sources, but if the claims are true, then it is notable. The spammy stuff (one or two lines is all) can be deleted easily. Pharmboy (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This laboratory has been covered enough by unrelated sources to show clear notability (Techrepublic, ZDNet, FastCompany, etc.) Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lab may be mentioned in article about Tivoli, there's no need to cover every current and historic IBM organization. Notable exceptions, like the groups working on bleeding edge hardware technologies or the once massive lab in Boca Raton are not reason to duplicate IBM corporate structure over here. Having 500 people it may not be the "largest software development company in Italy", consulting companies and large manufacturers may have large centers (all depends how "software development" is defined). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tivoli Software is a very important brand of the IBM Software Group, one of the major divisions of IBM and the IBM Software Laboratory in Rome is IBM’s largest Tivoli development location outside the USA. For sure, this lab represents one of the most important and largest software development laboratory in Italy (see for instance, EMEA Best Student Recognition Event, etc.).--Romelab (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper refs are placed in the article showing multiple independent evidence of notability. I was planning to vote keep but can only get 3-GHits, and 2 are from WikiPedia. Also I can't help wondering whether User:Romelab should declare an interest :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBeale (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a really major company, the main divisions like this are notable. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. To address the nominator's concerns, Bearian has added citations to the article, establishing the subject's notability. The Transhumanist 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirsy

Subject is not notable. Opening for notable bands does not equal notability, as local bands do this all the time. The only claim to notability appears to be criterion 10, which states that "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page." Additionally, the notability of Dorian Blues is a bit questionable. Jonwatson69 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would disagree with the asessment that the band is non-notable. Appearing in and contributing three songs to the film Dorian Blues. National television appearances on both cable and broadcast television. Placing in a national music competition. I believe this more than meets the minimum requirements of notability. Griff (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is just not there; there are no independent sources. The article makes lots of claims, such as "Sirsy has also written theme music for and appeared in promotional spots for Time Warner Cable and the WB Network." However, it's not obvious that this is national or important coverage, and the very sentence itself is not cited to anything. The article also claims, "In the summer of 2007 Sirsy placed in the finals of a national competition." What national competition? If these things actually happened and are notable, I am sure that you can find the sources to back up all of these claims. As for Dorian Blues, I already pointed out the its questionable notability and criterion 10's recommendation that Sirsy redirect there. Jonwatson69 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to knock you down, I want to see the article up to snuff as I believe it deserves to be listed. I've added more details about the Last band Standing competition, including a screenshot of their entry page and the top five listing. As for redirecting to the information regarding Dorian Blues, I'm not sure what you mean. Should I change the dorian link to go directly to the IMDB page, which lists the band members in the credits. I'm asking you to do more than criticize, please guide me in making the article the best it can be. As I stated, I believe that the requirements have been met. help me put them forward in the best possible way. Griff (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to meet notability criteria, it needs to cite independent sources. Additionally, the article now claims that "in January 2008 Sirsy made their national broadcast television debut on the television program Fearless Music. The program aired in syndication on stations throughout the United States." However, Fearless Music states that "the show only air(s) in New York and a few other metropolitan areas." That certainly isn't national, and there is no citation to prove that they appeared on this show--in fact, Fearless Music's page of bands featured on the show doesn't even list Sirsy. I actually was able to find the link to their appearance; however, it is shorter than thirty minutes and appears on a regional program. This does not meet criterion 12, which requires that a band must have "been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

Concerning the music competition, the image you added appears to violate copyright, and it looks like some online competition through which anyone could have submitted a video. Perhaps if the band had won, it would mean something, but this stretches the limits of notability.

In regard to criterion 10, if a band's only claim to notability is composing music for a notable film, their page should redirect to the film's page. Jonwatson69 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very well-known in Albany, been on National tours, etc. I'll get some more cites and proof of notability. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I promised back on October 26, 2007 to work on this, but I've been busy (my Mom's final illness, work, etc.) I'm working on it now. They really are the biggest pop rock band out of Upstate New York since the Goo Goo Dolls. Their claim to musical notability is National touring, if anything. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Fearless Tv is a syndicated show see, [1]. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They meet criteria 4, 7, 10, and 12 - National/International tours, music for TV/movies, major representative of a city's style, and 1/2 hour or longer syndicated TV show. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, From all mentioned they seem notable - lots of releases, have been on tv, etc...--Him and a dog 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Leaving aside the philanthropist/TV/celeb stuff, notability is certainly demonstrated as an author: she had 7 novels published in hardcover by Doubleday. DS (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Pou

Subject does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, but the article attempts to establish notability so it's not really speedy-able. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the claims about her can be sourced; well known philanthropist, television appearances, celebrity status, then this should meet notability standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but so far, the sources provided (which I did come across a couple of these during a quickie search but didn't add, as I didn't see the point) don't really establish notability as per WP:BIO, or if they do to an extent, don't satisfy WP:RS. While the claims about her are certainly interesting, as she wrote crime/mystery novels for women during an era when the genre was both dominated by and targeted to men, I've found nothing that shows that there was any greater social/cultural significance or impact that came directly from her novels, or even if her novels sold all that well or if she's won an award. The latter I would think would have been mentioned in one of the obituary-type sources if she had. I'm not hellbent on getting this article deleted; I came across it through the AfD for her husband's article (Charles D. Pou), which was created by the same editor, but I honestly can't find the sources to back it up. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the sources provide some grounds for notability, it's not a clear decision though. Does anyone know how well her books sold? Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- this is an author who was a major local presence in Atlanta and is honored by her alma mater, the University of Mississippi. This article should never, ever have even been considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been honored by one's alma mater doesn't necessarily confer notability (plenty of people are honored by their schools but aren't notable enough for Wikipedia), though at least there is a reference for this point. However, I've found nothing that demonstrates her as a "major local presence," as you say. I'd be particularly impressed by sources confirming the statements about her philanthropy or any cultural influence she had locally or on a larger scale. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia contains articles for just about everyone who's ever put on a pair of shoes in the NFL without complaint, I can't understand your reasoning behind deleting this article. Either you're from another part of the country and don't care who was prominent elsewhere, or you're just an officious nit who is looking for something to do with his copious downtime. You have not at all provided a compelling argument for deletion of this article other than its linkage to a skimpy article, itself labelled as a stub. The only argument put forth for deleting it is that you don't think she was famous enough, as if your opinion was the only one that mattered.dkendr

My reasoning is not that she's "not famous enough" but that there do not appear to be reliable sources which back up the claims that would make her notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should also remind you that you should remain civil in your discussions here and not take it personally if someone nominates an article you created for deletion. I am all for preserving information if it can be shown that there is a strong likelihood that sources exist to back up claims of notability that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. I have looked for evidence of this and have not yet found any that I feel fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines. If you or anyone else can produce some to my satisfaction, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the votes in this thread show that there is adequate proof for anyone else who has looked; I think you are clinging to your deletion nomination for purely egotistical reasons, and that your nomination of this article was improper in and of itself. Don't act like you're doing favors by not altering the record, either.

Keep. Seems to have more than just local notability: the New York Times has reviewed at least three of her books. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be brief "blurb" reviews that occurred in a regular feature that reviewed several crime/mystery novels at a time, which really isn't significant enough coverage, and is still about the books more so than her (though that may be splitting hairs; I'm not really sure). I think we're getting somewhere, though, as I didn't find these while I was searching for references. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who appointed you guardian of Wikipedia purity? Since you are finding more evidence to keep, I think you need to back off your position. dkendr —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shree TR Boarding School

PROD contested with comment, "take it to AfD", no elaboration on that. Middle school in Nepal, no assertion of notability, no indication of school district or equivalent Nepalese concept. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation, as there could be sources in Nepalese or in media not available on the internet. If context for notability becomes available during this AFD and I do not leave a follow-on comment, then please discount my !vote.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, too new for notable alumni, does not meet my fairly lax standards. How large is it? What activities does it offer? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I'll move it first to Only You Can Save Mankind (movie) for future reference.Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only You Can Save Mankind The Movie

Prod contested by originator. Low-budget movie, release date more than a year away. No assertion of notability of its preproduction. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately - and I'm a bit of a fan of movies like this. It leaves me with the impression that this is either a student film or an amateur film for publication on Youtube or something. I kind of hope this does something, but at this time it doesn't meet our criteria. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Only You Can Save Mankind. Pburka (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. On closer inspection, this film does not seem notable enough to be merged. Pburka (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a non-notable low-budget film. The article's lack of sources means it probably fails WP:V Ohconfucius (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only YOU can delete Only You Can Save Mankind The Movie per everyone, non-notable, low-budget = very yes. ViperSnake151 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of notability determined by verifiable coverage from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lhikan

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are primary sources and forum posts.. Ridernyc (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional character with no notability outside of the Bionocle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable character, poor sourcing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nicely put together article that is sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced? Where? Where are those reliable independent secondary sources? "bzpower.com" is a fan forum -- not acceptable as a reliable source. "biosector01.com" is a fan wiki -- not acceptable as a reliable source. "bioniclestory.com" is obviously not independent. So where are they, those independent secondary sources that show real-world notability? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Erven Jackson

Wikipedia is not a news source. Jonathan § 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Jonathan § 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quick check for news or other press, 0 results. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article fails the biographies of living persons as unsourced controversial information... borders on an Attack page. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Phoenix -wiki 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring May-December romances

An indiscriminate list based around a dubious neologism. We don't even have an article for 'May-December romance', so it seems absurd to have a list of films that feature them; and without any clear criteria for what constitutes such a romance, any decision to add/remove a film to this list is ultimately arbitrary. In other words: this list is unverifiable, non-neutral and basically entirely original research. Terraxos (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May-December romance redirects to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Obviously the naming of the article according to a neologism is poor and needs to change. I think the article could be imporved but I cannot see anyway this can ever have any solid criteria. Terms like social disapproval are weasely --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last time this was put up for AfD, I added about thirty refs for the films, and that seemed to satisfy people. I'm a bit lazy to do that again, but MDRs in film and otherwise are discussed in a lot of scholarly articles, especially ones interetested in feminism. I don't have the energy to create a page all about it, or add another bunch of refs, so the best I can do in 30 seconds of google searching is point out this google news search which seems to point to the "neologism" being quite common. Also, it's actually a term that dates from at least the 1940's, and is probably a lot older, so our rules about neologisms don't really apply. I think I'd call it more of an old saw, if anyone is old enough to know that term for "saying." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept I was wrong to call it a 'neologism', but I still don't think it's an appropriate title for the page. If it is kept, it should be renamed to something neutral like List of films depicting a relationship with a significant age disparity - which shows what a silly topic for an article this really is, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not rename. Keep for the reasons of Peregrine Fisher. Do not rename because WP:NAME says an article should prefer what the greatest number of speakers would recognize. In film, these romances are known as "May-December" they are not known as "Films depicting a relationship with a significant age disparity". What is the supposed non-neutrality of "May-December" anyways? I'm really quite curious to hear that one. --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, sources are available, and the name is the customary one. It is not indiscriminate, since it is limited to major films which have a WP article. DGG (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Brown (creationist)

Some editors are concerned about the "long term" notability of subject. They assert that short term bursts of press coverage does not establish long term notability. Ra2007 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't buy this idea that "long term" this person will be less notable. How could we possibly judge this in an objective way? The whole idea reeks of crystal ballism (yes, I know that's not the intended use of the policy, but its spirit certainly applies here). If we adopt the notion that at some point in the future a currently notable subject might somehow become non-notable, then we might as well delete every article on Wikipedia since this is true for all of them. I see no other reasonable grounds for deleting this article. Gwernol 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Notability is not Temporary - If something was once notable - it is always and forever notable. Notability seems to have been established in this case by the inclusion of significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - Fosnez (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We did not try very hard to establish notability. I found a lot of material in just a few minutes.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we speedy close? Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After an hour? I have no opinion, but most of the sources in the article are extremely far from reliable. I would very much like to see some proper references. bikeable (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then help me find more. I think that creationist references for a creationist are not too bad. And also we have some from talk origins which is reliable. And we have some from NCSE which is reliable. And Christian Broadcasting Network. It is getting there. But help me find more.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that Speedy Keep (and a resulting speedy close) nominations, on the basis of citations that were almost all added within three hours of the start of the AfD (including a number made since it started) are, to say the least, premature. A number of them are patently unreliable or both include mention, and substantiate points, that are too insubstantial to warrant mention in an article. The remainder (almost exclusively) from the 'trenches' of the evolution/creation conflict, from whence it very easy to find mention of even such laughably featherweight creationists as Casey Luskin and Salvador Cordova. It is possible that the new citations will add up to notability, but it is not as yet clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Grudging keep this creationist is not even mentioned in Ronald Numbers' authoritative and comprehensive The Creationists (which gives a few pages of coverage each to numerous creationists too obscure to have warranted a wikipedia article), raising considerable doubt as to his notability. The substantiation of his notability that has been offered on his article to date amounts to a couple of unreliable creationist/dominionist sources and an unsubstantiated claim that, 14 years ago, his hydroplate hypothesis got a 5 minutes mention in a two hour special on Noah's Ark. I don't think mention by either CBN or NCSE estalbish his notability as (1) CBN isn't particularly reliable, and Christian news outlets frequently cite obscure creationist sources (e.g. this recent article's mention of the obscure Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation); (2) although reliable, the NCSE has a strong focus on the Evolution/Creationism issue, so could be expected to, at times, take issue with the claims of even obscure creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC
- Comment: I see that a wave of citations have been added to the article since I last looked at it. However, I note that a number of them are of doubtful (and in the case of Babu G.Ranganathan, a notorious crank, laughably poor) reliability. I have yet to see one that is not likewise covered by my caveat to NCSE above, but will need to look into this more carefully. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "wave" seems to include an incredible amount of cruft -- e.g. the fact that Brown managed to get himself onto a couple of website links lists (one of them of a creationist organisation) found its way into the article's lead. This is hardly "significant coverage", and is perhaps indicative of a hurried attempt to establish Brown's notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is almost as notable as Kent Hovind I would say, at least without the jail sentence.--Filll (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree -- Hovind is much more colourful than Brown, so got a lot more mainstream media coverage, even before his legal difficulties. In any case, it is not about what either of us would "say" it is about what we can verify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. But a half dozen or more mentions in the NCSE journal, plus being appointed to a government committee, plus in a few Christian publications and some skeptic publications, plus being in some controversies and attacked by fellow creationists, all make for good material. He is notable.--Filll (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But how much of the above could you also put together for an obvious featherweight like Casey Luskin? The "government committee" was in fact a state board of education appointed review-committee, where each member of the board was allowed to pick a single member -- of very marginal notability therefore. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must admit to finding it absurd that Brown's hermit-like unwillingness to engage with either evolution supporters or even other creationists, which is probably one of the primary reasons for his obscurity, is being used (often via quite fleeting and unsubstantive mentions of it and thus him) to bolster the number of citations to make him look notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: notability is not temporary, but I suspect much of the coverage of Brown is. As I have said, much of it is from the trenches of the evo-creo conflict, where it is today's battles that are of concern, not the historical record. Much of it therefore is likely to be replaced with content on tommorrow's battles. However wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I will leave that issue for tomorrow, and grudgingly ascribe Brown a marginal measure of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vindication! Goo2you (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ~~you pathetic and vainglorious little ...."soul"~~, this is in no way "vindication" of your repeated([2][3][4]) removal of a legitimate notability template, and insertion of unreliable sources -- disruptive editing that necessitated this (as it turns out, otherwise unnecessary) AfD. It was not until Filll (and to a lesser extent Ra2007) added considerable reliable citations that this template should legitimately been removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to the wikipedia community for the above personal attack, and retract it. That the editor in question saw fit to crow over me both here and on my talk page that the consensus on this AfD was in some way vindication of his prior disruptive and ineffectual defence of the article's notability made me more than a little irate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to google news there are many newspapers that mention him. See this search. Specific examples (which might make sense to add to the article) [5], [6] [7] (unfortunately require subscriptions). All of those three seem to be reliable sources talking about Brown's involvement with school boards trying to get them to teach creationism. They come from newspaper accounts and don't seem to have any serious reliability issues. And there are other examples as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice CBS News even quotes him. This guy is obscure, but not THAT obscure.--Filll (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, obviously and self-evidentially notable to almost all. Goo2you (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources used are tenuous and not the greatest, but there are so many mentions of him that I'd say he passes WP:N. WLU (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Why is this article up for deletion? I am guessing it is because most can't "creation bash" like they want to. I remember first coming across this article and it touted the usual talk origin half-truths. I remember it used to be just an intellectual argument against creationism. Now I can see the emotional side as well. If you are going to remove this article because it has no reliable sources, I totally agree. This did not seem to be the case. It seems to get special negative attention because of who it is. I request that the person who requested deletion roam just a little of the wiki-world and find other articles to delete. I am guessing they won't, because they don't touch a personal nerve. If this article gets deleted, it makes conservapedia look more unbiased. If this happens, I will no longer trust Wikipedia. It will be a place for the intellectual progressive to toute their political views. Nothing more.RyanDaniel (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the exception of CyberGhostface, arguments to keep are all "But I like it!". Neıl ☎ 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman (Saw)

Delete - prod removed by anon without comment which, whatever, way to back up your opinion there sport. Anyway, article fails WP:NOT#PLOT as it is nothing but a rehashing of the plot of the works in which the character appears. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article simply needs some more info about the character from an outside source (interviews, etc), and it will be easy enough to obtain with the release of the Saw IV DVD, always loaded with commentaries and special features about the direction and creation of certain characters. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD commentaries are not independent sources. Even if they were, assuming that there will be interviews and special features about this character can't support the existence of the article. There may be no information offered about this character for all we know. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- just a rehashing of the plot -- and no reliable secondary sources means no real-world notability. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll preface this by saying that I really don't know much about Wikipedia's policies concerning what consitutes an appropriate article, but it seems like this article has merit based on the fact that Jigsaw's other apprentice, Amanda Young, also has an extensive entry. The Saw franchise has already been approved for fifth and sixth installments, and it is a reasonable assumption that this new protégé will play a large role in the new films. Therefore, if this article is deleted for whatever reason, another is simply going to pop up in nine months when Saw V is released, since it will contain far more material related to this character which could easily be used flesh out the article. And I guess I also need to say that this isn't a dummy account or anything. I've used Wikipedia for a while, and have always been interested in contributing to it. Seeing this article marked for deletion (one that i just browsed to and utilized) prompted me to become involved. --Fiduch (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC) — Fiduch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep He is vital for the story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.253.163 (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) — 212.62.253.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Agreed, he is vital for the story. --Rutherfordjigsaw (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why delete it, when more to his story is to come. --Morton Christopher (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed --Fantasy Entertainment (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone saying keep without actually addressing the objections to the article laid out in the nomination, did any of you maybe...wanna address the objections laid out in the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Memorable character in a notable franchise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world context. northing to assert notability outside of the franchise. No sources at all. Ridernyc (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although someone will undoubtably start swinging around the WP:CRYSTAL tag after I say this, Costas Mandylor (the actor whose played Hoffman) is set to appear with a much bigger role in the next two films, given that the ending of Saw IV set him up as the new main antagonist. Even as it is, he's already given a couple of interviews regarding the film, and it shouldn't be too hard to find critical commentary about his character and Costas's portrayal of him in reviews. If this was a minor character in a direct-to-video Asylum flick, I'd support its deletion. But given how popular the Saw franchise has become, and how important Costas Mandylor's character has become to the series, his article should be kept.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, found some interviews.[8][9][10][11][12]--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nothing has changed to address the concerns raised by the nominator. Still non-notable, all the sources found are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely plot summary with no secondary sources to indicate notability. It's doubtful acceptable sources independent of the subject exist to establish notability or to provide any sort of real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Rutherfordjigsaw and User:Morton Christopher have very similar user pages (nearly exact copies of each other with only one userbox being different) and they voted within three minutes of each other. I found this thread at WP:ANI from a few months ago, but nothing came of it. I doubt they are socks, but I believe that they might be meatpuppets and are votestacking. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep important character. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Hubble's law. Nakon 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hubble Constant

Band has a few mentions mainly on gig guides and some reviews but no non trivial articles to suggest notability per WP:MUSIC. Article is not very well written and is mostly quotes from reviews. No real signs of it being improved. neonwhite user page talk 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hubble's law. The Hubble Constant is an important astrophysical and cosmological constant in first place.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 147. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per anon. However, I have doubts if users are likely to add the "The" while searching for the Hubble Constant--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - keep or delete. Why would we re-direct a band's name to a scientific article, when someone might be looking for one or the other? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hubble Constant is an important concept in astrophysics. This band on the other hand is completely unimportant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs clean-up, but it does cite multiple reviews in reliable sources; these seem sufficiently non-trivial to me. That qualifies them under WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and I do not feel that those above calling have sufficiently addressed why the reviews given are insufficient. The band has also toured extensively, so WP:MUSIC #4 may apply. They also have a number of releases on what might be considered a "more important indie label" under WP:MUSIC #5. So, not an easy case to consider and, as I said, clean-up required, but there appear to me to be several indicators or possible indicators of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article, in fact, does not cite any sources whatsoever, if you know of any sources that aren't in the article then present them here or add them. The only article that would be of interest would be an article in metal hammer, however no evidence that this actually exists can be found. A handful of live reviews on local gig guides just isnt enough for notability. There has to be something to write in the article so it isnt a permanent stub. Claiming a band has toured is not a criteria for notability all bands tour, not all bands are notable. None of those indie labels have any history or importance, in fact i cannot find any evidence that Post Collapse Records actualy exists or existed. All current evidence points to this being a band with little more than local notability. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A review in Metal Hammer is cited; under WP:AGF, it would seem reasonable to assume it exists, although a specific citation would be preferable. I accept the other reviews indicate little. Not all bands tour and a national tour is a criterion under WP:MUSIC. This act appear to be touring beyond a local area, but I accept that this is unclear and not sufficient supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review in metal hammer is not cited in the article. Assuming good faith is a behavioural guideline on how to discuss in a civil manner it has absolutely nothing to do with citing sources. Please read that policy carefuly. All sources must be cited properly, we cannot assume they exist. We need to know whether the mention is more than the quote in the article, if it is merely a passing remark about a supporting act within the context of a larger review then it would only be a trivial mention. At the moment there is no evidence of a national tour reported in reliable secondary sources. --neonwhite user page talk 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Nakon 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TelSell

Non-notable company/TV shopping channel - I think. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is apparently the QVC of Britain. The article is thinly and poorly written, but I think notability exists. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could be right. But it's a Dutch company. How do you know it's the "QVC of Britain"? Is that anything more than an opinion?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - It is opinion, in the sense that I didn't read that anywhere. However, a Google search, website browsing and a couple painful watches of some YouTube video certainly made it seem so. I was confused about the Dutch thing too, especially since their website isn't in English. Very puzzling indeed. You could convince me otherwise of this one, I suppose, based solely on how strange it is :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it really were the QVC of Britain, there'd be more English-language coverage than there is. Using Google News Archive and restricting the source to BBC News, I get 16 articles with mentions of QVC somewhere in them. Whereas I get nothing for this subject. (The web page cited in the article isn't in fact a BBC News article, notice.) Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the QVC of Britain is called..................... QVC. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, English language sources are thin but there may be more substantive material in Dutch. Parts of the Antilles website are in English, and they seem to have a UK office in Suffolk, but it does seem a bit dodgy. Obviously the EU has erased many barriers to such businesses existing. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Dhartung notes, there are a few news articles in Dutch that mention this company. But they either are trivia or aren't really about it. One is a bare report of a credit-card theft from the company, with no details. Most are actually about advertising for a product called Biostabil. A few others are actually about a television presenter called Martijn van den Bergh. The discussion of TelSell amounts to the fact that these people/things appeared on the channel. Finally, there are a few discussions of some works of art, parts of which are "TelSell-like", and some discussions of shopping channels "such as TelSell". There are a few mentions in books, but those are merely as examples of shopping channels, too. There are other TelSells on the World Wide Web which aren't in fact this company. I cannot find anything that actually documents this subject itself, in Dutch or English. The PNC is not satisfied. An annotated entry in List of Dutch television channels is all that the available sources appear to support. Merge to there. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll look into sourcing tomorrow, it has been recently announced (this week) that TellSell is on the verge of bankrupcy, which ironicly might have generated some notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two major Dutch newspapers (2 of the largest, and 1 of probably the most respected). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it is the QVC of Britian, I haven't heard of it. Will ^(talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a good argument to use in deletion discussions. Just for future reference.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (the BBC article doesn't really qualify). Terraxos (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dutch cultural commentators Fokke & Sukke (http://foksuk.nl/) are referring to it in their cartoon of 10 January - and I didn't know what TelSell was, so I went directly to ... Wikipedia, where it was succinctly explained that TelSell is a TV program of home shopping. Why would anyone want to delete an article documenting a culturally significant (even if only a little significant) TV program? especially one that has ties to different European countries (based in NL, broadcast in UK)? I think the onus should be on those who want to purge what they consider excess information from Wikipedia to prove that it is excess, rather than the purgers proposing to delete information and having their way by default if no one objects. It's an *encyclopedia* - which means, among other things, that it's a repository for significant information no matter how banal or whatever the objection is here. Jeepers... Dveej (talk)
Delete, I can't find anything from which to write an encyclopedic article. Hiding T 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy (re)Redirect by Dennis The Tiger (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pistachios

Pretty obvious hoax. No references or external links. Google search (predictably) turns up nothing. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article started out as a redirect to Pistachio, but someone changed it to this story (and a lot of hard work!) on December 3, 2007. We can probably simply speedily redirect - I'm going to lunch, and unless someone has issues before I get back, I'll do as much. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect per Tanthalas39. Original redirect was created two years ago. —Travis ^talk 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. If possible, nuke for purposes of history elimination for a game that appears to have been made up in school one day. Already redirected, as per WP:BOLD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MysticSpiral

Author removed PROD tag without explanation, so here we are: Multiple searches turned up absolutely nothing to back up the claims in the article. This “band” does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. —Travis ^talk 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not to be confused with the fictional band Mystik Spiral —Travis ^talk 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowadays, chances of selling millions of albums without getting Google hits are... well, quite low. I think this band was made up less than two hours ago. -- Pepve (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we get this under CSD 11? Taemyr (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so. I did tag it for {{db-band}}, but then the article was edited to include claims of notability. —Travis ^talk 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax - there's no way those claims about album sales are true. Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria. In general it is felt that there should be general discussion before concluding that something is a hoax. Taemyr (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Sc straker (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deletion is the outcome, we might want to make this a redirect to Mystik Spiral. -- Pepve (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Delly

Author removed PROD tag without explanation, so here we are: A search turned up a few minor web hits, but nothing to back up the claims in the article. Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. —Travis ^talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Pepve|talk]]) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend: legacy of the dragons

As a browser-based game this is conceivably a Speedy deletion under criteria A7 (web based content; does not assert importance) but as it has a fair edit history, decided to bring it to AfD instead. Article shows no notability or independent references (WP:V), google search for "Legend: legacy of the dragons" -forum -wiki has only 24 hits, so chances of meeting our notability threshold is low. Marasmusine (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVASE

Non-notable organization per WP:CORP Luke! (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Rammstein Album

Completely unsourced speculation (even the title is extremely vague) about a possibly upcoming album. Unfortunately, WP:CRYSTAL isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, or I would have taken care of it myself. I think classifying it as spam is a bit of a stretch, so I'm posting it here instead. Kafziel ^Talk 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that their next album won't be entitled "New Rammstein Album," either. RJC ^Talk 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. More singing, more growling. I wouldn't expect anything less from Rammstein, but unfortunately that's all we have, is vague talk about some of the possible content. Let's wait until Rammstein actually comes up with a name and at least a semi-concrete release date, 'k? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent Will ^(talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against recration but only if they change the name to "New Rammstein Album." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I look forward to an article on Rammstein's "screaming/growling" once there is substantial information available - as the template notes, once it is "scheduled or expected". This doesn't appear to be the case yet, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, should have been speedied as the title gives it away. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but there's still no relevant speedy criterion, unfortunately. tomasz. 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails the Forthcoming Album Article Test Triumvirate: no title, no tracks, no sources. tomasz. 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voya Nui

original research plot summary about non-notable locations in the Bionicle universe no real world context and only primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless notability is established through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doubtful that secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metru Nui

original research plot summary of a fictional location. No real world context and no sources other then primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Has good information about bionicles that is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia.Swirlex (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artakha

original research plot summary from the bionlce universe. No real world context and the only sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Terraxos (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable, no real world context; no reliable secondary sources. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well put together and referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is shown. The sources on the article are poor at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Emerson

NN murder victim, quotidian crime. We are unable to write a biography of Ms. Emerson, because there aren't multiple non-trivial reliable sources about her disinteresting life. The crime which is her death is 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)also not remarkable, although of course reported on by the media, as all murders are. WP:V and WP:N refer. Delete. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'uninteresting', not 'disinteresting'. The latter isn't even a word. Other than that, I agree with your stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be best (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 'Disinteresting' is indeed a word, derived from 'disinterest'. Technically it shouldn't be used as synonymous with 'uninteresting' but in practice it increasingly is. tomasz. 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see your normative point. Thankfully, my liberal linguistics professors taught me that there is no one right way to speak (really?) and that it's counterproductive-bordering-on-racist to be normative about language. I didn't agree with them then, but I will now :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racist to use the right word. 'Disinterest' means 'objective, unbiased'. 'Uninteresting' means 'boring, of no interest, no importance' etc. People mix up 'who's' and 'whose' all the time too, but that doesn't make it right. However, this is an uninteresting digression, and as a disinterested commentator, I will desist.Be best (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, in certain faculties of certain universities, they are keenly on alert for any manifestation of racism. You see, the notion of a 'standard' dialect is an inherently racist concept, as the 'standard' one is normally just set to the one spoken by the straight white men with money and in power. Didn't you know? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that insecure that you have to call anyone who corrects your language usage a racist? --Koreanjason (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Being a murder victim is not a claim to notability. Reso lute 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, how about merging with an entry on the murderer or an entry on the murder(s) themselves which are pretty macabre? El Puello Diablo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a notable crime. Encyclopedias are not crime blotters. Dahmer yes, Berkowitz yes, jack the Ripper yes, Emerson no. That's Allstate's stand. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story was front page news on CNN.com and most other news outlets. See any of those other sources to cross-reference or fill in the details. Moreover, her murderer is suspected of being a serial killer,[13] making the crime all the more notable. MaxVeers (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another day, another grisly murder. Move on please, there's nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is my biggest problem with Wikipedia, the alleged free encyclopedia. There are other murder victims on this reference Web site, so how come not her? Wikipedia would be doing the public and journalists a huge disservice if the death of Meredith Emerson was not written about. And let's not forget that major newspapers and networks have been following this story. - Newseditor76, 5:47 p.m. EST, Jan. 9, 2008.
- Would you please express your argument in terms of policy or practice? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might you all wish to see Jose Luis Aquino and Zaydra Pena who were both murder victims WHO BELONGED TO A SEMI-NOTABLE BAND but which the article was unfairly deleted and the idea was rejected at WP:DRV with but three votes to thecontrary of my well-explained reasoning? You might want to think about not deleting articles that DROVE FEAR INTO THE HEARTS OF MANY before keeping simple ones like this. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not misuse this deletion debate. It is not the place for you to contest previous deletions or object to core policies like WP:NOT. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the page because I found that the an entry for Meredith was on on MWWS page on wikipedia, but no article on her. It may be too early to say that if the article should be removed. If this article is being removed, then I think it would require review of other articles too, e.g. Chandra Levy - not sure how many of them still remember her.Chirag (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not even a good WP:Pokémon test! Chandra was going out with a United States Congressman for crying out loud! She was a major political scandal. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad, but nothing remarkable. My rule of thumb for such cases would be if overseas news services would have picked it up, and I very much doubt they did. Thousands of people are murdered every year and only a few of them are more than a tragedy for the family and friends. Be best (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (for example, that this has received wide coverage from many news organisations, which doesn't seem to be the case). Murder victims are not automatically notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, the subject is a non-notable and one of thousands of people murdered each year. She is only known for one event: her death, thus fails WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the news, and it's not a memorial. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few days ago, I would have voted to delete this article, but since it turns out that Gary Hilton might be a Serial Killer, I believe that perhaps the article should be left intact until further information comes to light on the Hilton Case. If she was a victim of a serial killer, then the article should be part of a bigger article which would be more appropriate. --Hourick (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, major newspapers and networks, both nationally and internationally have reported on this case. If Wikipedia is truly an information source for everyone, especially journalists, then it has the responsibility to have an article about Gary Hilton and his victim and other possible victims. And I'm sorry for not doing this in the normal fashion but I don't have the time right now to learn Wikipedia's methods. I have deadlines and all. I'll try this weekend. --Newseditor76 (talk) 9:27 a.m., EST, Jan. 10, 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Ohconfucius. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until all the facts are known, esp about Gary Michael Hilton, leave this article on Wiki. This killing might be one of many, in which this info on Emerson would be part of a bigger story/article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.34.34 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The topic is unencyclopedic now, and we should delete it based on what it is now. If it becomes encyclopedic in the future, we can recreate the article then. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There's enough verifiable information to have a short article here, but Wikipedia is not the news. I wouldn't mind seeing how this one pans out, then we could consider it for deletion at a later date.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* This entry should definately remain! This already has become a famous case and the history of such should be available to the public. If this article is deleted, then all entries in this forum regarding famous murder victims, such as The Black Dahlia, a famous story about a not so famous actress in the 40's should also be deleted. The only reason we should agree to remove this entry would be if her family so requested.GeorgiaGirl2 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — GeorgiaGirl2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your general point, it's worth noting that the Black Dahlia is an unsolved case, and as such generates a different kind of interest/notability. MaxVeers (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I find it disrespectful to her family and friends to have a wiki article describing her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.119.51 (talk • contribs)

Does that also apply to the thousands of other articles describing people's deaths? MaxVeers (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hilton is now being formally charged with the murder of a second hiker, and there is a possibility of connecting him to several more.[14] I would say this is a compelling reason to consider the article notable. MaxVeers (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it ironic: If anything, it's Hilton who would probably be notable, as a serial killer, but doesn't appear to have a article, yet quite a few here appear to be arguing to keep this article based on Hilton's notability. Shome mishtake shurely ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the exact same thing. If anything, this article could be a redirect to Hilton's page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. There's an ancient debate about whether murderers or their victims are more "deserving" of an article (e.g. the Virginia Tech massacre) but I don't personally see a problem with it. MaxVeers (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable case of murder/disappearance. Covered by many international publications. --Plantron (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Plus, it also falls into line of the Category:Murdered pregnant women. Murder being the number one reason for deaths of Pregnant women in the U.S. 1,800 are killed every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I was thinking of a totally different case. --Hourick (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possible victim of a serial killer. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. --Koreanjason (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gary Hilton is likely a longtime serial killer, and Meredith Emerson's murder was the notable exception in his string of Murders that brought an end to his killing. This is not "just another murder" as someone above has said. The victims were kidnapped (some out of their own homes) robbed, tortured, and robbed via ATM cards.. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.70.73 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 72.147.70.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Keep - If additional information regarding Gary Hilton develops she may become more notable. Would recommend waiting before deleting to see how the case develops. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007

This proposed bill has very little chance at becoming law, and lacks coverage in the media. The only reference is to the bill's sponsor's (Ron Paul) website, which doesn't establish the proposal's notability. I would suggest that the article could be recreated without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Congressional bills aren't necessarily notable. RJC ^Talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - No shred of evidence of notability; apparently just trying to add publicity for Ron Paul. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. More non-notable Ron Paul fancruft. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete --- less notable than other similar article that failed AfD. --- tqbf 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this one, but not necessarily on any other AFD by the same nominator. I have moved a couple sentences to Stem cell controversy#Congressional response, which appears the most appropriate resolution. Also note that crystal-ball arguments are not valid; Ron Paul Library is not Paul's site but a supporter's; and the article was created in 2005 long before Paul publicity or fancruft was any motive (the most likely motive is simple pro-life publicity). Please do not overstate your arguments, thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment So this article is really about a failed "Act of 2005" and was retitled? All the more argument to delete as pathetically non-notable. (And why are you invoking WP:CRYSTAL, John? It's irrelevant to the article in question, and nobody but you had brought it up. I'm confused...) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because? --- tqbf 05:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Paulcruft unless evidence of coverage from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a failed act, and a non-notable one at that. No bill has been proposed in the US Senate, so it has zero chance of being passed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability, as far as I can see. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Esteban Halperin

Nonnotable person. Speedy deletion tag was removed by author. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - retagged, and author warned. Jauerback (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Pou

This is a non-notable journalist. There are no related google hits for this name. There are no sources in the article for the assertion of him winning awards. Further, being married to a notable person, isn't in and of itself, notable. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true about Google -- you have to screen out the hits about unrelated people to find them, but they're there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Little or no hits on Google, and the Atlanta Journal has not given him any awards. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP article, which had been marked as a stub, has been revised and extended to include more detail and references; more to be added. Other reviewers are reminded that at the time of his retirement in 1970, the Internet in general and Google in specific had not been invented. If you sufficiently narrow your Google search, you will see that articles he wrote in the 1950s on the Georgia state flag and school desegregation debate are still cited by the state legislature. There is a lot of difficulty finding relevant articles on Google due to two prominent and unrelated people also named "Charles Pou" (one attorney, one a historian at the U. of Georgia). If you narrow searches to exclude those his contributions and achievements are much easier to find on Google. Also, his other contributions are not publicly searchable from the Atlanta Journal web site due to their age (pre-1985); likewise his obituary is no longer part of the "free" section of the archives.

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montevideo Players Society

Article fails to establish notability through reliable sources. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little or no importance, and not written in encyclopedia style. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local acting groups are rarely-if-ever notable, and the article doesn't assert any notability in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Lingo

Notability of lemma not established. Indiscriminate accumulation of mostly unreferenced factoids. Essay-style article; nothing to merge to internet slang due to lack of encyclopedic value. -- Ddxc (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Ddxc (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is really an essay, not an article (making it original research) and not one on an encyclopaedic topic at that. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - no chance there's any way any of this article could ever be included in any encyclopedia. A snowball in hell has a much better chance. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lawyer. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate lawyer

Unnecessary sub-division. Cannot conceive of anything encyclopedic to add about corporate lawyers (and I am one myself!) that doesn't already appear in lawyer. I appreciate we have articles for personal injury lawyer and trademark attorney, but (whilst I am not mad keen on those two articles either), there is probably more to say about them than there is about corporate lawyers. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could possibly be merged with Lawyer if already not there. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 17:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to delete. Either mark as stub or make a redirect to Corporate law. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mark it as a stub. RJC ^Talk 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on reflection, I think replacing with a redirect to lawyer would be more apt. I think it is already marked as a stub (which is something of an understatement), and I think a redirect to lawyer would probably be more appropriate than to corporate law. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - arguably a notable class of lawyer, but I wouldn't strongly object to a merge either. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, certainly not worth its own article. As a separate page it might even run the risk of becoming a peacock site for "hot shot" corporate lawyers to reference themselves—and knowing corporate law egos this is much more likely in the corporate field than in the trademark or personal injury scenarios! Dick G (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely used term and industry category. No problem about sourcing. DGG (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corporate law and leave a redirect. I don't see this being more then a dict def or in someways a 'how to'. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corporate law or lawyers, and redirect to those pages. I share Dick G's concern that this could easily turn into a peacock page. Bellwether ^B _C 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people by nationality

Using the same argument as the ones used to delete the List of Colombians, none of these lists make sense. A category can group all the articles without needing a page. Not to mention that listing everybody in the world doesn't make any sense. Joedoedoe (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be a category, not a list, as it has no purpose but to list other pages. Terraxos (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is too wide and would risk creation of sizeable and unmanageable lists better handled by categories. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are lists of notable people with WP articles, and this will not include everyone in the world. Most such lists have not been deleted. It is a useful organizational device unless we delete them all--which I certainly hope will never happen. Its like a super-category, which should not be deleted until its empty. Lists of lists is an alternate classification scheme here to categories, and there it is still a valid way to do things, though not currently quite as popular. DGG (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although rename. I thought this was going to be a list of names arranged by nationality. It's not; it's a list of those lists, which is perfectly acceptable according to WP:MOSLIST#Lists of lists (although the redlinks would have to be removed). That this could be categorized is not a convincing argument per WP:CLS, which states that "these methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other." Torc2 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, moved to alternate title. Nakon 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Mohammad Al Hokail (banker)

Article does not establish notability of subject beyond current job position nor does it contain any references to bolster any claims to notability Ozgod (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands it's hard tell what this person is notable for. A Google search doesn't reveal a whole lot, and I can't tell if his previous job functions/titles are of any importance, either. Unless it improves with some verifiable references, I'll go with Delete for now... Jauerback (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article definitely needs cleaning up, but after a bit more research (per Paularblaster's links) , I can see how he meets WP:BIO. Definitely needs some sources. Jauerback (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable for being executive chairman of a major corporation. Article should be moved either to Abdullah Mohammad Al-Hugail, to bring it into line with the bank's 2006 annual report, or Abdullah Mohammed Al-Hugail, which gives the G-hits. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Paularblaster. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Paularblaster, who has demonstrated the subject's notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation and blatantly non-neutral. All of the text is in fact directly copied, word for word, from works written by Erich Feigl, whose published work is one of several points of view on this subject, and the accuracy of which is quite strongly disputed. Clearly that isn't a suitable way to write a neutral encyclopaedia, even if it weren't a copyright violation. The web site, noted below, is in fact also the work of Feigl, as it says right at the bottom. Karpuzpeynir (talk · contribs) has made no other article edits than to copy text written by Feigl here, too, and is even dumping Feigl onto talk pages. We don't need this. I've revoked the account's editing privileges, zapped all of the images, uploaded with no copyright or licencing information and indubitably copyright violations just as the prose is, and zapped the article.

Wikipedia:Copyright policy is non-negotiable, and editors who do not abide by it will lose their editing privileges, for the protection of the project. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is non-negotiable, too. They are both Foundation issues. I caution both Arsenic99 and Cliobella to familiarize themselves with this project's, and indeed all Wikimedia Foundation projects', fundamental, non-negotiable, policies.

Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Forgeries

This page appears to be a POV fork of the article Armenian genocide. It is little more than an attack page. The prod tag was removed. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely seems very propaganda-like. Jauerback (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extreme POV throughout. Reads like a propaganda essay, not an encyclopedia article. Unsalvageable. Doc Sigma ^{wait, what?} 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Clear NPOV violation. Also, I can't think of a way to improve the article such that it would not violate NPOV or POVFORK. I would say that anything worthwhile would belong in Armenian genocide, if it could survive the editorial process there. RJC ^Talk 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it as copy-vio. Copy-pasted from here and here. VartanM (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copy-vio, propaganda.--Folantin (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While the article does need extensive improvement it is important to note that there are indeed forgeries fabricated by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation party of the Armenian Diaspora that has invented quotes from Hitler, used pictures not relating to the Armenian genocide to evoke reader emotions, and forged Ottoman documents that had incorrect date codes as well as simple logical errors, one such example is the Talaat Pasha telegram that Armenians attribute as the 'smoking gun' to the Armenian genocide theory. However, it is written from Syria (a country of a large Armenian community) on the date that Talaat Pasha was in Istanbul, and the date was wrong and language was written crudely. It's important to note the difference of what proves a genocide and what doesn't otherwise anyone can fabricate a genocide after losing a war with forgeries. I would also like to add that the article is indeed a similar copy to another site, hence it should be REVISED extensively to fit Wikipedia standards and to not violate any possible copyright laws. I don't mind helping to improve it. Arsenic99 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article definitely needs cleanup. The copyright violating issues can be resolved without changing the main idea, therefore they are no reason for deletion. The POV situation should be remedied by adding information and citing sources that deny the forgeries. The article does not classify as propaganda, it contains information about forgeries made by Armenians. These forgeries can also appear on the Armenian Genocide page as part of the debate. (Cliobella (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small business research

What is this even about? It's somewhat unclear. I found it at new page patrolling, but I have my doubts about its encyclopedic notability or worthiness of inclusion. If it is indeed notable it'll require a complete rewrite and reliable third party sources. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone is using wikipedia as a notepad. VartanM (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not even close to being an article. Jmlk 1 7 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with VartanM. Kyriakos (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally did put a G11 tag on it, but User:Pedro declined it which is why I brought it here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - The article has been expanded a little, and sources have now been addded to the article. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Yida

Non-notable academic User A1 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If the claims made in the article can be sourced then that should be sufficient to show notability. Taemyr (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree with the comment by Taemyr. The problem seems to be a lack of citation, not one of notability or some other criterion for deletion. RJC ^Talk 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming that the information can be verified. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if information can be verified. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English language source which has been added to the article checks out, so I'm assuming per WP:AGF that the Chinese ones do too. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rowena Arrieta

Piano player who did win some minor awards as a youth in the 1970's [15] for being "young and promising", but now is a piano teacher. I really don't think that this person has enough of a claim to notability to be in the encyclopedia. CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I'm sure winning an award from the "National Music Competitions for Young Artists Foundation" looks great on her piano-teacher business card, it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Jauerback (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. VartanM (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Tortuga

References can't be found which afford this small charter operator notability inline with WP policy, fails WP:N Russavia (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I can't find any Reliable Sources or References either.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per CSD-7, no indication of importance given. Taemyr (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Airways Aircraft Services

Can find no references which afford this company notability inline with WP policies, fails WP:N. Russavia (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I can't find any Reliable Sources or References either.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per CSD-7, no indication of importance given. Taemyr (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONT> I found an article that includes all DR airlines , also in prosses, and i found it website that is underconstrucction yet. [16] and [17]. Lateta (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:NOTE calls for nontrivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Oceanairways.com is not independent. The other needs a login so I can not really comment, although if it includes all airlines in DR it is unlikely to be giving non-trivial coverage. In addition the url looks like it leads to a user page, and if this is the case then it's not counted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Taemyr (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2008 (UK)

DeleteToo early. Most of the contenet is hear say. Not good enough sources. Recreate page when more facts have been comfirmed. Hiltonhampton (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no problems with it. We known it is being planned and it is fair enough to have the article. Maybe trim to established referencable facts, but keep the article. Ben W Bell talk 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to a "Big Brother 2008" section in Big Brother 2007 (UK). The only verifiable info in this article is audition dates and places, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Brad (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an officially announced and verified series on a major network, which will begin airing in only a few months. 23skidoo (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben W Bell. Why delete, so it can be re-created in few months (or less)? Do some research, there's probably more info out there. Jauerback (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because we'll have to create it in awile doesn't mean that we keep a bad article. Also for an event so far away the only dources that can really be used would be official press releases. Blogs or fansite won't do.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big Brother USA 9 has a page so why doesn't Big Brother UK 9 have one.In23065 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Because that article describes how the US series has been brought forward to fill the gap left by a lack of scripted shows, using reliable sources. The UK article lists audition venues, "who knows where the house will be?" and "there might be chavs but then again there might not be". Brad (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also BB9 USA starts three months ahead of BB9 UK therefore we know more about it.And a lot of the content is contains words like, "perhaps", "rumored", "uncomfirmed" ect.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Big Brother 9 US follows the guidelines as per WP:BIGBRO. Quote from the project page "Articles for a series of Big Brother should not be created until there are promos on television. This, and only this, should be taken as a sign that Big Brother will be happening, and is good enough a reason to create an article. Anything else, unless it can be confirmed by some high up-there television executive guy, is not enough reason to create a series' article, and is most likely speculation." There have been commercials airing for Big Brother 9 on CBS. Also the main show will return on February 12, 2008 and the companion show Big Brother: After Dark. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable television program. Everyking (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too early, there's nothing to say about it yet except speculation. This can always be recreated later when there is actual significant information available. Terraxos (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well keep but ensure that everything is referenced and mere rumours/wishful thinking/inventions from forums are eliminated. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still too early for the page. If it wasn't for the fact of the Writer's strike we would be saying the same thing about Big Brother 9 US because if it wasn't for the writer's strike the season wouldn't have been pushed up from the summer to air in the winter/spring. The BB9 UK page should be created sometime in late April or early May since the season was already confirmed when it was announced that Celebrity Big Brother wouldn't return in 2008. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's going to happen, and the article's going to end up being recreated anyway, and there's enough verifiable information for a stub at least right now, which will only grow with time. There's no reason to delete this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just becuase it's going to be recreated doesn't mean that we should leep a bad article. There is virtually no info what so ever.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BB9 is notable and people are discussing it. 82.150.99.2 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet its not--Hiltonhampton (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Gezira Sporting Club Nakon 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gezira Sports Club

The article has the wrong name (see: Gezira Sporting Club), plus the article does not follow Wikipedia's standards

Rename Not a reason for deletion, suggest renaming--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Location given and sports practiced is different from those in Gezira Sporting Club. Is this the same club? Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is incomplete, it does not discuss anything related to the club, expect some teams accomplishments, and again it is not the clubs right name it is called Gezira Sporting Club not Gezira Sports Club. Yes it is the same club, only mistranslated. It is the same location but written in a different way, Gezira is the neighborhood name, while Zamalek is the province name.Abdallah (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect and Merge with Gezira Sporting Club. Seems a likely misnomer. Taemyr (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strong Delete The information in this article is of no importance what-so-ever. Trust me, if what is in Gezira Sports Club was of any importance, it would be in Gezira Sporting Club. But since the information in the article are unimportant I suggest it to be removed. A elalaily (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - original creator of the article endorses deletion, and it fails WP:PROF. KrakatoaKatie 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan Pilipović

contested CSD. Corresponding membership of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is strong evidence that this scientist is notable Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable Serbian mathematician. His work is significant and well known (200 peer reviewed papers is a ~~very~~ high number) and clearly regarded as an important figure by other scientists (corresponding membership of the SASA, restricted to the top scientists in Serbia) Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you !vote "Keep" after starting the AfD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on a discussion on my talk page, I think that Mostlyharmless either believes that AfD is a place to contest a speedy or they are nominating the article for me. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Theres no way this belongs in speedy, and PROD is for things that aren't contested. I refuse to get involved in a one on one argument over the notability of a particular page, and want community feedback on the notability of the article. On the basis of those considerations, AfD (which is also often AfKeep) seems like the best place to list the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not prod it? That way the creator(s), would have 5 days to show notability and if they failed, the article would be deleted all the same. AfD seems a bit early right now. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't prod for uncontroversial deletions? This clearly isn't such an article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was inappropriate in any case as the article asserted notability (full professor, corresponding member of national academy of sciences - yes, I know, the Serbian one). It would have made more sense to start with a prod. Very often, people start an article with a stub and then build from there on. I don't think I have seen new article fully-hatched pop-up from nowhere at creation, yet. --Crusio (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Crusio's question is more, so why not just contest the speedy, and then not put it up for AfD. An AfD isn't a necessary part of contesting the speedy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this article was put up for speedy deletion the same minute it was created, which was earlier today... and other oddities. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, someone was watching the recent changes and checked this one, and nominated it for speedy deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I do admit that a speedy probably wasn't necessary in this case. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~very weak keep~~ - fails WP:PROF, and the speedy tag was clearly placed appropriately and in good faith. The article made no assertion of notability - being a professor, having a field of study, etc. are not assertions of notability. I believe that it still makes no reasonable assertion of notability, and more importantly, it falls well below WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a corresponding member of a national Academy of Sciences is an assertion of notability and one that merits serious consideration. Mind you, I haven't made up my mind about this AfD yet, I may still vote for delete, but I have not yet seen any good arguments and I'm inclined to wait and give the creator a chance to improve the article. --Crusio (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider that alone to be notability. Third party sources would be nice, but of course I realize that academics tend to be the authors of the publications that make them notable. I still think the article fails WP:PROF, and that its subject is not really notable ... but there are marginal, though not necessarily adequate, reasons to keep at this point. I've changed my !vote to a very weak keep, but would like to see more evidence of notability put into the article if possible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote back. I know I keep flip-flopping, but I should have trusted my gut on this one. Pmanderson has now pointed out that this is (in part) a copy-paste job from his CV. I'm also going to stick with my assessment that being a CM of an NAS is not enough for notability, not automatically. While it might seem germane to say "what about CMs of the US NAS?" but honestly, they'll establish their own notability elsewhere - corresponding members of prominent NASs are not notable because USA is "better" than Serbia or something, but because prominent NASs tend to have notable members. I do not count Serbia among them, and I think the non-notability of this person verifies that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment S. Pilipovic has 96 publications in the Web of Science, cited a total of 179 times. In my field (neuroscience), that would not be much at all, but in mathematics this may be different (I do know citation rates are much lower there). Google Scholar gives higher citation counts, with 50, 27, 26, etc. --Crusio (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment which National academies do we accept as being certainly notable, and which not? I know what I think in certain cases, but how are we to justify the decision, given the need for a world-wide perspective? DGG (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

query Is that not a little like asking which national governments we consider notable? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. We already make distinctions between membership in particular organizations and others. For example, being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame confers notability. Being inducted into the hall of fame for the bowling alley down the street from me does not. And yet they are both halls of fame. As I said, this article need not answer the question "which NASs do we consider as notable enough that their members inherit notabilty?" NASs that imbue notability generally have members that are already notable (and likewise for the not notable case). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep it's a good many articles, but the 4 most cited has been cited only 14, 8, 8, 7, times. I thinks that's only borderline notability.DGG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~. Based mainly on the membership in the National Academy. The number of publications is good, but they are not cited much (this may be field dependent, but I have no real idea about what is a notable citation rate in mathematics). Some more info on the subject's notability would be very welcome. DGG, you are certainly correct that it wold be good to have some idea about which National Academies are automatically notable. The extremes are evident: the US Academy confers immediate notability on any member, but an academy of a small country without even a single university (if they even have an academy in that case), would not. In between is where it gets problematic. --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has an amazing amount of publications. I'm not an analyst, can't judge the quality of the papers, though. But anyway, few people have that much publications. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. The sheer number of publications is enormous for most fields of mathematics. Since I cannot judge their value, as I am working in a different field of mathematics, I would not normally vote at all. But since some non-mathematicians do not seem worried in the slightest about such minor points of competence there must be a counter-weight. See also Wikipedia:PROF#Caveats: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. Typical numbers of publications vary greatly by field. Paul Erdös had 1500 publications, Saharon Shelah has about half that amount. These are extreme exceptions. Mathematical Reviews returns 113 articles for Stevan Pilipović. At the other end there are many recent Fields medalists with less than 10 publications on Mathematical Reviews. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my vote because the original creator voted for deletion. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - hanging on a hair of notability doesn't cut it for me. Jauerback (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mostlyharmless.

Weak keep per Terraxos. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Hans Adler. Based purely on the number of publications, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Besides, of all the things Wikipedia's detractors may say, no one's going to argue that we have too many articles on academics. Zagalejo^^^ 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. It seems my entry is interesting even for a non mathematical audience.Itointegral (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (added) Delete We should not include every corresponding member of every National Academy of Sciences in the world; and this article is a CV (in fact, large parts of it, including the ungrammatical book titles, are cut and pasted from his CV). What has he done? If we cannot make that clear, why have the article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was written before the section on his notability existed; but that section is unsourced and labelled autobiography. I join the flip-flop brigade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Like Cheeser1 I am flip-flopping, all evidence of notability rely is borderline. Many articles, but hardly ever cited. My previous "keep" vote was based on the mebership of the Serbian NAS, but Cheeser1 has convinced me: members of the US NAS all have plenty of other sources establishing notability, the Serbian NAS is apparently easier to get into. --Crusio (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hans Adler.Weak delete per Cheeser. Like others, I'm swinging on this one. I'm no longer as convinced he's a notable mathematician. Notable Serbian mathematician, definitely, but not sure what his standing is outside Serbia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not too sure on this one either, and wouldn't really object if it were deleted; but his number of papers published suggests (marginal) notability. We really need someone to do a more in-depth investigation to determine notability here. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by citations to extensive publication list. Spacepotato (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deletion of this article. Itointegral (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support destructive acts involving the article in question.

Itointegral (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with deleting the article (though I !voted weak keep above), but I did restore the accomplishments/notability section forthe time being. I thought it was important that if the article is deleted it is done by editors who have read the claims of notability and discarded them. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the author agrees on the fact that the article does not meet the notability criterias. This is supported by the fact, that only for 2 serbian members

of the acedemy wikipedia pages are created, both of them being stubs (the rest which have wikipedia entries seem to be foreign members throughout). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.195.165 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2008

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Saved the Electric Car?

Original research: This article appears to be an original essay by the author. Bagheera (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - odd essay, no real subject, and seems as if it is possibly advertising something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Basically spews sources (including an instruction to google search). WP:OR all the way. Doc Strange (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Original research, soapbox, advertising, and poorly written. Definitely not encyclopedic content. Tim meh ^contribs 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. There's a redlink here from Who Killed the Electric Car? (apparently there is supposed to be a sequel to that film by this title), but this isn't about that. If there's significant information about the planned film by this title, it can come here later. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This editorialized stub is pure original research. Majoreditor (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete -- essay, original research. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not clear what it is at all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see above. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Although the fourth 'reference' made me burst out laughing this is WP:OR and cannot stay.~~ Having looked at the creator's username and some of the vaunted Google links I have come to the conclusion this is WP:SPAM. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borwick proposals

Delete NN outcome of a NN conference, unreferenced, and article admits that there is no reliable source Mayalld (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an assertion of notability is made. Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir Jahangir

Self written artist article that has a blatant conflict of interest, no independent third party sources to help it meet WP:BIO guidelines. Should probably be a speedy under A7 but he lists some publications he wrote so brought here for consensus. The creator also keeps removing the AFD tag and keeps placing his personal email address on the page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a copy violation from here.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete under WP:N. Author makes no assertion of notability. He can put all his musings, which is pretty much the whole article, on his user page if he wants. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone should direct the author to MySpace, where he can soapbox on his own website. Jauerback (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't know what this is, but it clearly isn't a Wikipedia article. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally gave this a PROD as original research - I didn't think it qualified for speedy A7 as it isn't "about a real person, organization (band, club, company), or web content". But it should go, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:COI. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells

Completely unreferenced, classification of spells involves heavy original research, also seems to of interest to an extremely small group of people VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unnecessary and excessive WP:PLOT detail with little to no context and no establishment of notability. As per nom, classification of spells seem OR. I can't see what encyclopedic value this list has or how it enhances the Nanoha articles at all. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Characters' pages have more details about spells (and sources). Zerokitsune (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete for all the reasons given by the nominator. Nothing worth keeping here. Terraxos (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Terrible article, numerous policies broken. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is trivia and contains no context about the individual spells or as a group. --Farix (Talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarians (film)

No assertion of notability. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I expect it was a rubbish movie, unfortunately that's not a criterion for deletion. Apparently it took nearly $500,000 at the box office [18], making it not the least popular film of all time. It's sufficiently notable. The article needs to be developed, not deleted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some assertion of notability is made. 'It exists' isn't sufficient grounds for it to have an article. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a famous film in the film geek community. I don't really know enough to find more notability requirements, but I do know it is often categorized with The Goonies and such as quintessential kids' films from the 1980s. This needs development but I wouldn't delete it given its Imdb info and box office take. But, I dont know that much about this. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be on the safe side. Verifiable and sufficiently notable -- it seems to have its fans. --Lockley (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY, lots more can be written about it. It is notable as is made 1/2 million at box office, was popular in 1987, it's sort of a cult film these day (never taken to DVD). It was also released in at least three languages (english, german, and italian) and has made it to the internet (in addition to Imdb) on at least one major review site herewhich is a lot more than many second tier 1980's movies can say. Just because it isn't a super famous movie doesn't make it entirely non-notable.Earthdirt (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Flux Insurance

Even though there are some assertions of notability the article fails WP:CORP. Delete TheRingess (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems to (just about) pass WP:RS to me. It's clearly minor, but perhaps still notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst the article may be of minority interest, it clearly passes the criteria of WP:CORP for establishing notability. For example, one of the references cited is a substantial profile of the company by a major UK regional newspaper directly comparable with the example given of Hewlett Packard notability established via Palo Alto Gazette article. Drjwilson (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Robson

All references are unreliable sources; google doesn't have anything except self-published sites. I don't think the person is at all notable... besides the delusions of grandeur that seem to manifest in the writing. -- Menti fisto 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless coverage from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mentifisto, he has expressed my position well. tomasz. 13:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Freshen Up" toilet attendants

No sources, no references, not notable, could be merged with Bathroom attendant, cruft Quoth nevermore (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article's talk page, the article is based upon Urban Dictionary and talking in person to "a real 'freshen up guy' at a local pub". The article is unreliably sourced and original research. Anything verifiable that needs to be said about toilet attendants can be used to expand toilet attendant, which isn't exactly overfull with verifiable content. This is a ludicrous title for a redirect. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable/original research. Terraxos (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Headwes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wetten

Subject of possible COI editing / vandalism at Wondrous Oblivion article, subject clearly has a IMDB listing but seemingly for exceptionally minor roles. Child performer, may become a star, but listing here to see if there's consensus that star status is WP:CRYSTAL or if there is genuine notability. Dweller (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Currently unsure, leaning to delete. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too minor me for me. Plus a single IMDB reference isn't really enough to convince me of notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Negative): An IMDb biography/filmography is not a reliable source ... subject fails WP:BIO without any Attribution ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry

~~This page is a direct copy of Yankees-Mets rivalry. I don't think it meets a CSD crtieria, so I'm bringing it to AfD.~~ CastAStone /^/(talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)(concern addressed)[reply]
This Article is about a non-notable baseball rivalry that has existed for less than a year--CastAStone /^/(talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content is completely irrelevant, bearing no relationship to the article subject (aside from the fact that both pairs of teams are rivals). Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: My previous argument no longer applies: the article now does cover the subject. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Move to creator's sandbox for development; article was just created today and looks like a possible stub that is being modeled on Yanks-Mets. Creator is an established editor who should be given the benefit of the doubt.--12 Noon ^2¢ 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In light of the complete overhaul of the article, my comments no longer apply. It seems to be a simple notability issue now, of which, regrettably, is not in an area I feel knowledgeable enough to comment.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per 12 noon, or redirect to Yankees-Mets rivalry. We'll have to see whether this subject deserves an article or not, but let's at least give it the chance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been significant editing of this article since the last comment 6 days ago so it needs more eyes on it before a decision is taken. --Bduke (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to work now. It could use some more sources but it looks like it will get there.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above and 12 Noon. Rtac _{contributions} 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Seeing as these teams have been playing each other for less than a year, it seems premature to call this a rivalry. The only rivalry that could possibly exist is one manufactured by corporate advertising, and that does not suffice for notability. RJC ^Talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJC above. A deep rivalry can't have arisen after just one season; and it's crystal-ballery to assume one will develop in the future. Therefore, delete. Terraxos (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one game doesn't equal a rivalry, I doubt sources will show up for a while Secret ^account 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was. Keep and cleanup. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian pride

It's been almost nine months since the first nomination and the issues still haven't been resolved. Though the subject itself would appear to be notable (hopefully someone, someday, will rewrite or re-create the article using reliable sources), as it now stands, this article is still nothing more than an original, personal essay. - ∅ (∅), 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One issue has. The article no longer relies upon a single web page as its source. The problem now is that editors are conflating at least three distinct things:
- Asian pride — the rejection of U.S. and European influence by Asian countries, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia in a 1994 National Geographic for example
- Asian Pride — a part of the EPIC programme run by the University of California at Los Angeles in the mid-1970s, that evolved into Multicultural Pride and that still influences UCLA and its environs today
- Asian pride — a group pride political movement amongst Asian Americans that has existed since the 1960s, as discussed here by the Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, for example
Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you acknowledge that it is notable, then the article should be kept. You can always stub it back down. Nine months isn't a long time at all; I added 2 of the 3 current sources during the last AfD, and do plan on adding more, though it hasn't been a priority with all the AfDs that crop up. –Pomte 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find anything in WP:SOAP that says it's a criterion for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of WP:NOT which is policy and is often cited in AFD discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pomte. There is some definate soapy goodness here, but doesn't look like anything that cannot be fixed. -Verdatum (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable encyclopaedic topic. The article is in need of cleanup and improvement, but still merits inclusion. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Call of Duty 4. If anyone wants the table for a CoD Wiki (which I'm sure exists or will exist), drop by my talk page.-Wafulz (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of duty 4 multiplayer ranks

My PROD rationale: Wikipedia is not the place for in-game statistics; it is WP:NOT#indiscriminate information.

Prod removed by an anonymous user with the reason: Wikipedia does not state that in game statistics cannot be included. It is your opinion that in game statistics do not belong on Wikipedia, not a rule. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We need a CSD for this. User:Krator (t c) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE --Breno ^talk 10:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above, and agree with Krator. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because unsourced and is simply a statistics list without context or any indication of why this is of any use to anyone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on everything already said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Wikipedia is not a game guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROD rationale was entirely correct. Pagra shtak 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous reasons. -Mastrchf91- 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telecential

Delete and redirect to Virgin Media. Damnit! I was getting excited because I had pressed "random article" without finding a delete worthy article almost countless times (it normally only takes 5-6 times). All info can be incorporated into Virgin Media, no need to have a sep. article Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't worry mate, you can still be excited - This one's not worthy of deletion either! While I am not an expert in the subject, it appears to have been a large(ish) cable company in the UK, and while it has been purchased now, when it was independant, it was notable. Therefore it is notable now and valid for inclusion. Once you get past the press releases, there are some decent Google News articles about it, and i'm checking some other sources now. I will flag the article for rescue and see if it can be brought up to standard. Fosnez (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some sources, bearing in mind that they company was merged in the early 1990's it is harder than I thought to find sources I can varify - there are a lot of "do you remember telecential" style forum posts... Anyway, I will leave it for rescue and see if anyone else can find sources, but I believe it is notable. Fosnez (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Virgin Media is a bloated article as is, no need to push more content into it. NTL should probably be spun out from it, and merging there might then be an option. Taemyr (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run Rincewind Run!

Delete NN fanfilm. Fails to meet notability requirements of WP:NF. Previous PROD was contested on the grounds that Terry Pratchett appears in it. However, his was not a sufficiently major role to make the film notable per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability - this film was aparently only shown at a convention and wasn't broadcast. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Wikipedia is not paper; the fact that the film wasn't broadcast doesn't alter its notability for the purposes of wikipedia, IMO. Pratchett appearing in the film, even briefly, surely makes it notable. Robinh (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as detailed above, WP:NF defines notability for films, and is explicit that notability is only inherited from a participant if he/she played a major role in the production. Pratchett's role was as a cameo. Whilst the film may (in your opinion), surely be notable, Wikipedia policy says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if Pratchett was in it, it still fails WP:NF. No reliable sources could be found pertaining to the film, and furthermore, it was only a minor film shown at a convention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This film has a section in "An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett", thus meeting wikipedia's requirements of notability. Agent Pleochroic (talk) 1:16, 10 January 2008— Agent Pleochroic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment WP:NF seems to disagree with you Mayalld (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An 18 minute film made at a cost of $300 and shown at a fan convention grossly fails the Wikipedia standards for film notability. Edison (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there is a source regarding this film, that makes the information about Pratchett's role in the film worthy of inclusion in the article of Terry Pratchett. However, as I'm unfamiliar with the film and mostly unfamiliar with Pratchett's work (I know of it), I can't say either way whether the film warrants its own article. I lean toward "probably not," but for now, having given my two cents, I'll abstain. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fan film, doesn't pass notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seemingly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Appears to already have been transwikied. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus (Charmed)

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Sometimes I wish Charmed was as notable as fans make it out to be ^_^; JuJube (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://charmed.wikia.com/wiki/Tempus - the article here is an in-depth, although unfortunately in-universe article about a character who only appeared in three episodes. -Malkinann (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, no question that this sort of thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Charmed characters or similar. Catchpole (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Malkinann, then delete. Collectonian (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Cheng Yi

Non-notable, minor fictional character in various MediaCorp TV series, created as a part of a plot by sockpuppet ColourWolf to spread false information and compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. 90 % of the contents formerly present on this page were fake/made up. No new information have since been added. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~unless references can be provided.~~ Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, even if sources can be provided, this is a character in a TV show and thus pretty non-notable anyway. Terraxos (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnotable character that fails WP:FICTION. Would say redirect, but article doesn't actually say what show(s) the character is in.Collectonian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread port

Hoax; I can't find any corroboration of this definition. And only slightly amusing. Jfire (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, also no references Chris! _ct 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The term "thread port" does not refer to buttons only, so this article is misleading.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be provided. Terraxos (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of characters in Nanoha (to preserve history of already merged contents). Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Testarossa

Unreferenced, seems like the article cannot be expanded to more than a permanent stub. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into List of characters in Nanoha per WP:FICT. Doesn't appear to be individually notable on its own. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I almost said merge or delete, but from the time the article was created, and the time the list was created, the content from this article was made first, then added to the list. Because of this, we require the article's history, thus merge/redirect. But yeah, very unlikely that an article about this specific character would be necessary. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Nanoha. The current content of the article is already on the list. I also get the feeling that other Nanoha, character articles are due for a merge since almost all of them are merely plot summaries. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into List of characters in Nanoha. Character does not seem (on an admittedly limited search -- but given how little I see her discussed, I didn't expect to find much) to have acheived independent notability to the standards of WP:FICT. As Ned Scott points out, it needs to be merge to preserve the edit history, even if all the content is already at the target. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Nanoha per Quasirandom. Minor character, appears in two episodes (I think) in the all trilogy. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as content is already in character list and per WP:FICT, and character is unnotable within the series, much less apart from it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google returns < 200 hits with nothing even close to a reliable secondary source. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as series itself makes a usable primary source. It wouldn't be the first character list without freely available secondary sources; apply rules uniformly. Anaholic (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge isn't necessary as the description of this minor character in List_of_characters_in_Nanoha#Others is sufficient. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that, although the current content is not brilliant prose and probably has WP:OR issues, there is no consensus to delete the article. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Peace

'Islamic Peace' is an OR term. There are no reliable sources using this term. This is as valid as having an article titled Islamic violence. Any useful content should be merged on other pages. Didnt want to bite the newcomer who made the article but unfortunately, the term does not exist and so the page will have to be merged somewhere else.Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I sugggest the article is renamed, along the lines of Peace in Islamic thought or Peace and Islamic thought, (or something less cumbersome). Islamic perspectives on peace, and critical research on those perspectives, deserves an article in this encyclopedia. With a slight change of focus, this article could do just that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the title could be "Islam and the concept of peace" (which I feel would be better) but I'm not supporting that either. The article is largely OR and its similiar to making Muhammad and Pedophilia because like this case, there are many people who've associated the two terms. So this is just original research. Collecting a few fragments about these two words being mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph doesnt justify an article. Thats the main point. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one humble question to mr.User:Matt57 wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary as you are saying frequently of not existing the term[?] can you conferm that the titles of the wikipedia articles are terms or words. there are thousands of articles which are explaining the events and difinitions with appropriate simplified words. Zikrullah (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "Islamic peace". No reliable source mentions this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem I see with the article is its title, which is a neologism. The content, however, is suitable for an encyclopedia article under a different title. My preference would be for Peace in Islamic Thought. RJC ^Talk 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace in Islamic thought I agry with this title.122.161.29.239 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK from Religion of Peace. 66.29.115.69 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything Religion of Peace is an unimportant neologism that should be reworked under this article... but, it's too long and so should remain separate. gren グレン 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sir, this article is an introduction to the concept of peace in islam. it is not a political or disputed subject but a basic belief within islam which is also the core of religious belief about the fate of humanity in this world in all the religion semetic or dharmic. i can mention many things related to it from the scriptures like holy bible and gita also. the Kingdom of God or wasudhaiw kutumbkam(global family in hindu philosophy) are very classical concepts of global peace in almost every culture which is often related with the end of the time or judgement day. So there is no question about the importance of the topic. every critical idea to improve it is awaited eagerly! bless you bless theism! do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~, though I want to see some feedback from other Muslims in this discussion. Per the nom, this appears to be pretty much original research with some hints of islamic evangelism. This is fine and well and all, but how important the content is is subjective, and is not a criteria for inclusion here on Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask, and I shall receive. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the author and the Muslim community as a whole, and change my !vote to a keep, as they are working on the article. Good call, Lenticel, I should barnstar you for that. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already asked WP:ISLAM to take a look as Dennis requested. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Peace in Islam or something similar. The current title isn't appropriate, and much of the content is either non-neutral or original research, but fundamentally this seems to me like an acceptable topic for an encyclopaedia article. It will need plenty of rewriting/cleanup, of course. Terraxos (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article subject is not related only to miletary or war but also to socialogical and eschatological aspects.Zikrullah (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant into Islamic military jurisprudence where it is both a more neutral title, and opposing scholarly viewpoints can be discussed under a far more neutral title. Deletion is also a good idea.Yahel Guhan 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As taking sincere consideration of above views i want to ask to edit the article precisely as to make it encyclopedic and neutral! PLEASE NOTICE! there may be some content to be included in the article .whatever is inappropriate , i want to remove it. sourcing is also to be done. but meanwhile please give me time and do not delete anything as i myself now going to delete if any thing creates problem with standards so please talk before editing! thanks and blessings! Zikrullah (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Peace in Islam". Its a notable topic. The new user who created it has already dug up some reliable references.Bless sins (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bless sins. Noor Aalam (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Islam and peace, or similar, and make more neutral in point of view (See WP:NPOV). The article has two problems. One is that it currently reads something like an essay and expounds a single point of view, although that is potentially correctable. The second problem is that the title does not convey what the article is intended to be about, and the term is non-neutral (The Latin phrases "Pax Brittanica", "Pax Americana" etc. imply a victorious peace dominated by the named party. This connotation carries somewhat into the English translations (American peace, British peace). It does not appear to be what was intended. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Would also agree to rename to Peace in Islam per User:Bless Sins. --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Shirahadasha. I agree that Islamic peace or Pax Islam still doesn't exist.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenticel said "I'm OK with either "Peace in Islam" or "Islam and peace" (one of them might be a redirect to the other). Both seem to be valid titles." This comment was made on my talk page,[19] where the user expressly allowed me to refer to it in the AfD.Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global peace in Islam /Islamic Global Peace are better than peace in islam i think, as the the foundational concept in the teachings of islam / islamic theology is about Prevailing the peace all over the world and to every person of any race.The same idea is mentioned in bible and hindu philosophy as kingdom of God [as God wish it] and wasudhaiw kutumbakam[global family]. I will write an article on wasudhaiw kutumbakam and i need some help from my elder brothers.the article islamic peace may be renamed most appropriate and i am still editing it near the standards. Zikrullah (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) blessings![reply]
Delete Blatant violation of WP:OR.--CltFn (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been moved to Peace in Islamic Thought. I think it's time to close this AfD, as the main issue (neologism) has been resolved. If the article cannot be improved to avoid OR issues after repeated attempts, then it might be relisted. But the page is less than half a month old, and there are ongoing efforts to resolve the OR issue. It would be inappropriate to delete the article for a problem which people are working to resolve, and no argument has been given thus far for why an article of this sort cannot possibly avoid OR issues. RJC ^Talk 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Peace in Islamic philosophy" or something similar. The topic certainly appears to be notable, as a search of Google Books illustrates. Although the article needs cleaning up, there's clearly no shortage of potential sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per above comment by User:RJC. Feer 10:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there definitely is an article within this title. I'm a little worried about some of the sources used and scope issues... because this will be a very hard issue to cover since I don't think it's always explicitly written about in classical texts... but, I would keep and trim down some of this. gren グレン 12:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Martianmister

The result was delete. The user in question has very little edits to begin with, so to userfy content that is a copy of other content would be a GFDL violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar episode page accidentaly put onto creater's self-named page Piemanmoo (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd move it to the episode's proper name, except that it's a duplicate of that article (per this diff), in a version immediately prior to that episode being turned into a redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes (per this diff). I'm mute on the redirect issue, as it is somewhat contentious - but, creating an improperly named duplicate of the old version of an episode's article is not the way to disagree with the decision. If the user intended to userfy this version, perhaps as part of an effort to merge the information, then this can easily be moved to accomodate that intent. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I'm fairly certain that was the creator's intention here (though it would be a good idea to check). The article here can be deleted once the content has been moved to user space. Terraxos (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with explanation on user talk page as a WP:AGF that it was a mistake by an inexperienced editor. Collectonian (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compaq Presario S6700NX

Although the line of computers is definitely notable as well as the producers. The individual series of computers is not notable. Marlith ^T/C 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:AfD footer (multiple) for multiple deletions on the same basis. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Compaq Presario article. While there might want to consider removing the long lists of WP:REDLINKs to avoid these non-notable articles popping up again. These comments also apply to AFDs Compaq Presario 6410 and Compaq Presario 9500. --Breno ^talk 10:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, redirect to Compaq Presario. Biscuittin (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling AFD debates Compaq Presario 6410 and Compaq Presario 9500 to keep discussion together. --Breno ^talk 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nomination on the same grounds as the nominator. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup the article and put {{wikify}} --Kibsamol23 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)— Kibsamol23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment "Cleaning up" a stub or linking the term in it to other articles does not create references, which are required to show notability per WP:N Edison (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that these particular models of computer are notable. Wikipedia is not a catalog or directory in which every model of product ever sold by every vendor is automatically entitled to an article without substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Compaq Presario, as this computer is non- notable and is unencyclopedic. 76.102.106.18 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Compaq Presario, as per reasons listed above. nf utvol (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Compaq Presario, since that's where more information should be. Twerbrou (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Edwards

Fails WP:BIO. Please read the article and references carefully. The "award" that she wasn't given to her, it was given to the whole entire newspaper staff. In addition, this "award" was given by the New York Times to a newspaper owned by the New York Times - hardly a notable award. The references only link to articles that she has written. Every journalist has articles somewhere on the web. brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eminently non-notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article was {{prod}}ed on 21 December 2007 -- on the grounds that it was a "hoax".
- After spending thirty seconds doing a web search I could see the article clearly wasn't a "hoax".
- As an experiment, I found some references, and added them, so the article wasn't unreferenced.
- My conclusions were: (1) that the original article about her definitely not a hoax, and the quality-control patroller who {{prod}}ed it as a "hoax" was alarmingly hasty and really owes it to the rest of us to show more caution in future; (2) the noteworthiness of the young journalist in question remains marginal.
- Nominator didn't mention in the nomination that Edwards appeared twice on Court TV WRT her coverage of a serial killer. Court TV is a USA-wide network isn't it? I don't get Court TV where I live. I can't form a reliable idea of how noteworthy those appearances would have been.
- I am not prepared to defend this article, but I don't think I owe any apology for making the effort to expand its references. If the article is deleted I won't regard those efforts as wasted as I pasted the references I found into related articles that were poorly referenced.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Librarianofages docboat (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but I guess the current redirect will do as long as it's not reverted. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epirotic

POV fork of Tosk Albanian, designed to promote irredentist nationalist ideologies regarding an Albanian claim to Epirus. Entirely unreferenced as to its central claim that "Epirotic" is a common designation of Albanian language varieties and that Albanian speakers are "the"(!) natives of Epirus. The external link is to a 17th-century document and lacks discussion in reliable secondary sources; all the rest about Arvanitika, Arbereshe etc. is already treated elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inherently POV, and I don't think that could be solved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems somewhat redundant. Marlith ^T/C 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No reliable references and POV.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: On second thoughts, it might also be a solution to simply redirect the page to Epirus. That way, we don't have POV problems, and the redirect target will make it clear that there are both Greek- and Albanian-related concepts that this adjective might apply to. Should have thought of it earlier. In this sense, you might consider this nomination retracted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, whatever. Assuming that the huge multitudes of previous delete voters won't really mind, I'll just IAR and redirect the thing now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. jj137 ^♠ 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions

WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC) brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a game guide. Stormin' Foreman (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormin' Foreman. In theory, this could probably be verified by FAQs and walkthroughs and whatnot, but it still wouldn't be appropriate here. Maxa megalon 2000 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This would be like having an article for a list of chapters in a book. TJ Spyke 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT reads more like a plot summary than a game guide. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely complete. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Stormin' Foreman, and VivioFateFan. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per nom, and above reasons. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 02:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitus wolf

A non-notable character some nobody on the internet made up. Image is an altered copyvio of a Dragon Ball character. I can't believe this has been around for half a year. Closedmouth (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and possibly G1. Nakon 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A7 isn't for fictional characters, else I would have done that myself. It is pretty nonsensical though. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can probably call it non-notable web content, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, it looks like a character someone made for a fanmade DBZ story. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since 99.99999% of fanfiction is "published" online, it's almost always covered by the "non-notable web content" facet of A7. Oh, and the fact that it contains a copyvio image (with the author lying about being the copyright holder) is all the more reason to want it gone, quickly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-notable, the article is unreferenced, and is also orphaned. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (Blackadder)

AfDs for this article:

This article still fails WP:N by not incorporating non-trivial real world information as described in WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE. For some reason, a mention of tea and a very trivial reference by a member of the British Parliament saved it in the last AfD, but neither of those is enough to even assert notability. The part about the tea can always be merged if necessary. TTN (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the real world information in the article, pointed out by the nominator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out how those meet the criteria of significant coverage? TTN (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real world notability is asserted. This does not deserve an individual article per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RANorton. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1. Notable episode of a notable series, and to my knowledge Wikipedia has not yet banned individual episode articles, otherwise there are hundreds of articles on episodes that will need to go to AFD and 2. A previous AFD resulted in a Keep decision on Nov. 29 2007, not even 6 weeks ago and I will not support the creation of precedent that articles may be repeatedly nominated until someone gets the desired result. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on previous nomination. I also strongly agree with the above regarding a second nomination in 6 weeks. TTN keeps saying that Wikipedia policy backs him, but then when a AfD concludes keep, just because he disagrees he nominates it again. There is indeed a dangerous precedent here. --UpDown (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Repeated nominations of articles until the 'right' answer is forthcoming are tiresome. Nick mallory (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the nom. Meets the "real world" notability (a ref I myself added on the last AFD nom). Why nominate this episode and not all the other Blackadder episodes? In a worst case scenerio, this should be redirected to List of Blackadder episodes, but it's notable enough to survive the AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, the episode as listed as a reference in this textbook, as seen in an Amazon.com preview. However, I can't actually view the page on which the episode is discussed. Zagalejo^^^ 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above and my comments at the previous AFD. I see no reason for this to be nominated so soon again after the previous failed AFD. Haven't you got something better to do, TTN? I very rarely comment on contributors, but to be honest I'm getting quite bored with this editor's actions on this encyclopedia; his poor nominations, ceaseless clinging to a disputed guideline which appears to have very little ground level support (WP:EPISODE) and failure to listen to the opinions of other contributors. Bob talk 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT because it is almost entirely a plot summary. What little real-world context can be incorporated into the main article. I looked at the mention of this episode in the government document, however it is very trivial and isn't used to support any statements about the episode. --Farix (Talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Blackadder episodes, fails WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE with no real world notability and nothing but plot summary. Episode already has a summary on the List of Blackadder episodes and the plot "summary" given in the article is not suitable for merging. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:FICT does not apply -- this is a real episode of demonstratable existance, not a fictive object. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an episode of a fictional sitcom. Yes, FICT does apply. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all episodes of every TV series rate an article, but I feel this one does. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes Blackadder episodes special next to episodes of any other television series? I see lots of reasons according to policy and guidelines as to why this article should not exist, but no policy or guideline based reason as to why it should be kept. So far, all of the keep comments have been to either disparadge the nominator or are the equivelent of WP:ILIKEIT. And policy based arguements always trumps WP:ILIKEIT. But there has been no proof presented as to how this episode, or any other Blackadder episode article, passes any of the notability criteria. Notability requires objective evidence, but so far, no such evidence has been presented. --Farix (Talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Cunning: The Blackadder Programme Guide By Chris Howarth, Steve Lyons" ISBN 0753504472

"Blackadder: The Whole Damn Dynasty, 1485-1917 By Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson, Ben Elton" ISBN 0140296085 Callmederek (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki info and Delete as presently given - notability requires "significant coverage" and the factoid about the episode being given away with tea is not "significant". That said, I would think that there is some better source for real world notability about the episode's development through commentary or the like (the set's on DVD, though I can't recall if it has such); if such can be found, reinstate article with it. --MASEM 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Might consider deletion upon the 5th or 6th nomination, should it get that far. R. Baley (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to add: If people are concerned about their content being deleted, they need to comment at AfD's, but then go to the applicable policy (-cies) which are used to promote the deletion of their articles. In this case, at least comment (per the nom text) at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do have to say that most of the people voting keep would probably not be voting keep if I wasn't the nominator or if this wasn't Blackadder/a British television show. If this were about an episode of Friends given away with a pack of hot dogs, and a congressman referenced it in something to do with obesity, I doubt many would be voting keep. TTN (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. You might like to read the following - Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Catchpole (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and whack TTN with multiple trouts for being so disruptive. Tim! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a very good example of my last comment. This user both hates me, and has a very strong bias towards British television shows. I doubt he would even consider commenting on my silly example up above. TTN (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are "disruptive" for nominating the same article twice within two months.--UpDown (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why TTN is trying to inflame this with talk of "hate", maybe an octopus is needed as a the trout is not working? Tim! (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One month is an ample amount of time to improve an article. Seeing as there was absolutely no push to even edit the article (two edits since the close of the last nomination by an anon), I fail to see how it is disruptive. TTN (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline etc etc. Tim! (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also fine "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." TTN (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of it, or even redirecting it, makes it harder, if not impossible for anyone to edit it to improve it. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it's going to take a push from an experienced editor to establish notability, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle it if they find actual sources. TTN (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Richard Arthur Norton and Tim! Callmederek (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge into an episode list) - no proper evidence of real-world notability. I don't always agree with TTN, but it seems to me he's entirely right on this one. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains no significant Notability arguments. I note that the only edits since the close of the previous AfD were to add more tags and templates, and a partial transcript. That's hardly the sort of improvement that should help an article. I note that a large number of the arguments here constitute 'I like it' or 'i don't like TTN' reasons. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also aware of books on Rowan Atkinson/Blackadder which a quick search with google will highlight in a few seconds, as well as newspaper articles etc. I don't own said books nor am I likely to go and buy them but there is enough for me to know 3rd party sourcing is out there. Wow here's a radical thought - if someone on this AfD actually had some of these books or borrowed them from a library....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a MORE radical thought. Instead of leaving hostily, immature, snarky rejoinders, why don't you crack open some of those books, and use them to improve the article? It's not my job to fix YOUR favorite article. I'm commenting on the AfD. If you feel the need to get so snarky with a commenter, I feel the need to thoroughly ignore you. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, now no need for caps lock is there? It's not my favourite article, and it would be on a long queue behind other stuff. Given real-life commitments, 2 months is a fairly short time to hold an article to ransom. Anyway, let's keep it from getting personal eh? I've been adding plenty of sources to articles in the RPG field and urged others to do the same. Not that comments like yours make me jump up and think, 'Gee, I must go to the library to spend some of my free time doing what I was ordered to go and do.' 2 months is short compared to many core articles which have been unsourced for years, to put it in perspective. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per 23skidoo and UpDown and Tim!. --Nikolaj Winther (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first episode of an extremely popular sitcom. It has some references that hint toward notability and has enormous potential due to DVD commentary and the like. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is mostly WP:PLOT and does nothing to establish notability. --Jack Merridew 10:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I so love it when people voting delete pretend not to know the extent of the popualrity (and hence notability) of some of these articles listed. OK, individual D&D modules maybe but this is a famous TV show which had few (i.e. quality rather than quantity) episodes cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
popularity != notability — And please note that I am pretending no such thing; I've never heard of this show. Please check your systemic bias at the door. --Jack Merridew 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed you'd choose to speak so authoritatively on a topic you claim to know nothing about then. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(prior to reviewing the article per the AfD. Can you hear me now? --Jack Merridew 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Very funny. So how exactly is nominating this so quickly after the last (a) collaborative or (b) following consensus - as per that segment you just highlighted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above; I didn't nominate this; I didn't participate in the last AfD (note, again, my comment that I have never heard of this before); and the article is unencyclopaedic in its current form, i.e. not notable. And, please, indent after bullets properly: an asterisk followed by colons. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable first episode of a now classic BBC comedy series, repeatedly aired worldwide on BBC Prime. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect & merge to List of Blackadder episodes. Much as I am a Blackadder fan, trying not to be WP:POV, its real-world significance seems somewhat strained to me. The claims for notability seem to be ideal candidates for footnotes to the list; of interest but do not make the episode significant in itself. We have an example in List of Fawlty Towers episodes for this kind of situation- some are notable enough to sustain their own articles, and some are not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In fact, apart from the pilot, every episode of Fawlty Towers has its own article. Many are also unreferenced, and many others use as reference fawltysite.net or episode guide books. If that establishes notability, what about "Cunning: The Blackadder Programme Guide By Chris Howarth, Steve Lyons" or "Blackadder: The Whole Damn Dynasty, 1485-1917 By Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson, Ben Elton" or the www.blackadderhall.com/ site? Evidence of popularity/notability = 2nd best British sitcom ever here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sitcom/winner.shtml Callmederek (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Callmederek. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned, will be sourceable. the public for some reason considers this a very notable series--I don't have to agree, but it's the public reception that matters. DGG (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant episode of series with quite some staying power. This demand for "real world references" seems to be getting disruptive rather than helpful. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing the Wikipedia requirement for notability. Obviously, do not salt for the availability of future editors who have such evidence. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really do thing the keeps have lost sight of the forest (the series) do to the tree (the episodes). Just because the series is notable doesn't mean that the episodes are notable as well. Notability isn't inherited nor is it based on popularity. --Farix (Talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand full well that series notability does not equate episode notability and I also understand that summary style would lead to a list of episode article rather than individual episode articles. However, this is the first episode of a notable series, introducing many motifs that were used in subsequent Blackadder series. Between the DVD and the books available, it has great potential to further establish notability. Editors have already put in the effort to find some references to this specific episode. Ursasapien (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is the first episode doesn't make the episode notable in and of itself. For an example of an episode who's notability is independent of the series is "Electric Soldier Porygon" from the Pokémon series. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable episode of notable show, whether the current version displays it to the degree that some editors demand is debatable, I've written one article about an historical event that only one book ever has been written on the subject - with one reference in JSTOR - this episode, whether I like it or not, is more notable than the the article in question.--Alf ^melmac 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reasons articulated above, and because nominating an article for deletion, merely six weeks after a previous AFD nomination was closed with a unanimous consensus favoring retention, without offering any new arguments for deletion, is inappropriate. The renomination of the article not only on the same basis, but also by the same editor, in a short period of time, is downright disruptive. TTN should not be permitted to seek the deletion of this article through repeated AFD nominations on identical grounds. John254 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its notability was established six weeks ago in the previous AFD. Will ^(talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TTN had his answer the first time round. Astronaut (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life (film)

Future film. As it stands, deletable as pure crystal ballery. Krevans, your edit summary says: "the 'Q' rumors are notable ...". I agree, but if do not link to the 'Q' rumours, your comment is useless. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also unsourced and main search results I found for it are still very much "may happen" type stuff. If it the movie is firmed up and released, then no prejudice to recreate with the name Tree of Life (2008 film) (as there is already film called Tree of Life released in 1998). Collectonian (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This project first came about back in August 2005, according to The Hollywood Reporter, with Colin Farrell being discussed. Two and a half years later, it still hadn't entered production. More recently, Ledger and Penn are reported to be involved with this project. However, there is no indication that production has commenced, so in line with the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. Mention of the project can be made at Terrence Malick until this film enters actual production. For all we know, it could take another 2.5 years for the project to get to production. Of course, if production begins, it'd be appropriate for the article to be created due to the near-guarantee of the full monty -- plot, cast, production, reception, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph already exists at Terrence Malick about the film in development, though another change is worth noting -- instead of Heath Ledger, Brad Pitt is reported to be in the lead role, as of December 2007. That's three different actors that have been involved with the project so far, which goes to show that there are factors affecting this project's progress. We deleted The Wrestler (film) not long ago (see AFD), but I later recreated it as The Wrestler (2009 film) when production began. As one can tell, it's completely possible to recreate the article if production begins. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOS! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton

The text is misleading: this represents just two people contesting two seats in one General Election. Although it is rare for such people to get votes into triple figures, it is still not notable. There is no evidence that there is any real "party" behind these votes and even if there were, the name suggests clearly, that it would only be of local interest. (Tom, the best thing would have been to leave the name in Template:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2005 but unlink it. They are registered but have no website.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See the detailed discussion of micro-party notability at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Public_Party. andy (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may like to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Independence Party before that. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. docboat (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - however, it might be an idea to formulate a general guideline for the notability of political parties (in the UK, at least), rather than dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. For example, The Community Group (London Borough of Hounslow) has several local councillors (and is therefore more significant than this party) but its article has the "Notability" tag and it may arrive at AfD before long. Would Talk:List of political parties in the United Kingdom be an appropriate venue? Tevildo (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need anything more specific than the PNC. Any other sort of rule, such as numbers of votes, numbers of candidates, or numbers of members, will operate badly in practice. Covering the parties inside Wikipedia to the same extent that they are covered outside of Wikipedia (a row in a results table in an article giving election results for a constituency, if that is all that a party has outside of Wikipedia) really is the best approach. That's what the PNC gets us. If there are multiple published works from independent and reliable sources documenting the party in depth, it gets an article, because using those as sources we can write a full article, verifiably, neutrally, and without original research. If no such works exist, then we only have the sources, the bare election result statistics published by news agencies and the like, for filling in rows in an election results table. This requires looking at each case individually, on its own merits. Notability is not a blanket. Human knowledge is uneven. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The band released at least two albums, and they are reviewed by AllMusic. This establishes reasonable notability. The citations should be improved, though. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Dead Tree

Contested prod. This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Article has no third-party references (nor do the de, fr, or pl articles), and a good faith search hasn't revealed any significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, this band does meet WP:MUSIC in that they have released at least 2 albums on a major independent label, if seasons of mist isn't major, what is? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Season of Mist isn't as big as all that, but I agree that it's big enough to mark this band as notable. Precious Roy (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps you're right, but you would agree that Seasons of Mist is as grim as they come, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Season of Mist really is so notable, it's odd that their own article doesn't have any third-party references either... but since I know nothing about the metal scene, I'll defer to those who do and support a Keep here. Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that should be added, but remember, black metal is generally not a commercial thing, so the label isn't major as in EMI or Virgin. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find the notability in any third party sources. I recognize that this is a non commercial thing but does it have sufficient importance in its non commercial aspects..back to reliable third party sources. --Stormbay (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? it's a band on a notable label? why does it matter? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unresolved point of debate whether notability sub-guidelines such as WP:MUSIC are subsidiary to WP:N, i.e. whether the more restrictive requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N must be met for a band to be considered notable enough to be the subject of an article, or it is enough to meet the less restrictive requirements of WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki all except the Korean and Romanian lists to Wiktionary, per WP:WINAD and past consensus. The Korean list is part of a FA, so its fate should be handled through a separate discussion. Several editors discussed an as-yet-unwritten article that would use the Romanian list as an addition, plus the Romanian list is also sourced, so it should also go through a separate AFD discussion. The remaining lists, including the Deshastha Brahmin list, will still be accessible through interwiki links. KrakatoaKatie 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names

Some of these may be recreations since last time (I think they were all gone then, but now there are more) but, according to longstanding consensus, lists of names are not encyclopedic and are transwikied and deleted. See WP:WINAD. I'm including the list of past successful nominations of lists of names that I compiled a while ago:

Past "lists of names" nominations

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

This nomination is for the following articles:

These articles are merely lists of names belonging to a particular language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. —Dmcdevit·t 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of names without explanatory text is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would retain Deshastha Brahmin surnames. This section was separated from the main Deshasthaentry because it was too long. The article is not a mere list of surnames. It also tells the reader where the family comes from in terms of the subgroup or clan (gotra) it belongs to. Having a local family deity is also a feature of Marathi People to whom Deshastha also belong. Overall, it gives a good microscopic anthropological picture of the two million strong deshastha community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all these lists (except the Korean one) are entirely unsourced, and there's general precedent that such lists are indiscriminate and basically useless. This material is not suitable for Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Romanian list is sourced. Biruitorul (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transfer to another Wikimedia project, e.g. Wikibooks. Do not remove the material from Wikimedia simply because it's unsuitable for Wikipedia; instead find the right place for it. Fg2 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I could have made it more clear that the proposal is to transwiki these to Wiktionary (which has an appendix of names already) and then delete them. Dmcdevit·t 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Wiktionary. TableManners^U·T·C 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list of Romanian names of Hungarian origin - it is finite, drawn from a published third-party source (which also implies some notability) and well-formatted. It is notable because it sheds light on an important aspect of Transylvanian culture (the interplay between the once-dominant Hungarian element and the former underclass, who were given (or perhaps adopted) these names prior to 1918, or were forced to take them during the Hungarian occupation of Northern Transylvania. Moreover, several prominent Transylvanians have had these names (Victor Ciorbea, Iuliu Hossu, Alexandru Moghioroş, Leonard Orban, Vasile Suciu), and the list helps to show this detail of their background. Biruitorul (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Radufan (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elucidate? This is, after all, not a vote. -- Biruitorul (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider each list separately. Some of these lists are justifiable for their encyclopedic value while others aren't. Some are sourced, others aren't. Some may have been created to allow shortening of larger articles. I would say:
- List of Malësor names --- Delete, unsourced list of words, with no explanation whatsoever
- List of Bunt last names --- Delete, same
- List of Goan Christian surnames --- Delete, same
- Latvian women names --- Delete, same
- List of Korean family names --- Definitely keep, part of the featured article Korean name
- Deshastha Brahmin surnames --- Keep, but needs sources
- List of Indian names --- Delete, some explanations, but limited to a dictionary scope
- List of Montenegrin names --- Delete, unless sources and prose are added to account for notability
- List of Paravar last names --- Keep only if Paravar leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries are notable enough
- List of Romanian names of Hungarian origin --- Keep, an excellent addition to a yet unwritten article on Romanian last names
- List of Turkish names --- Delete, unsourced list of words

In any case, deleted lists should be transwikied to Wiktionary and linked in Wikipedia, where necessary. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Romanian names of Hungarian origin per Biruitorul and AdiJapan explanations. The rest of the lists can be deleted per AdiJapan-- AdrianTM (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean family names, as already mentioned is part of the featured article Korean name. The information is in a differnt format, so it can not be merged into Korean name. The list provides a lot of new information. Not to mention it is excellently sourced. These two articles should be our precedent, IMHO. If a given list: 1) [if it] has the potential to be brought to the level of List of Korean family names, an article of its own, then it is a keep 2) [if it] has the potential of becoming a good section of an article, like List of Romanian names of Hungarian origin could become a good section of yet-unwritten Romanian last names, then re-arange and keep as a section or keep as an article, but bear in mind to re-arrange as a section when the expansion is done 3) [if it] has the potential to be improved, but so far it is a list of words (which is not suficient for an article), e.g. Latvian women names, place it on a long-term delete list, i.e. if it is not improved into an article Lativian names within 6-12 month, then consider delete. 4) if it is a bogus list, consider speadly deletion. In short, look at everyone separately, and see in which type it falls.:Dc76\^talk 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Romanian/Hungarian list, per Biru's observation on its relevance to the cultural and ethnographic history of Transylvania. I don't see much worth keeping in the other lists, except maybe the Deshastha Brahmin one. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Korean list, per comments above. The article goes hand in hand with an FA, and is a useful reference in it's own right. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Biruitorul. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Dreams from My Father since there is no consensus to delete, but neither to have at this time a separate article. Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Hussein Obama Sr

Completely non-notable outside of the context of his son, and even then seemingly non-notable. None of the references appear to be directly about him, mainly comments on him from his son some of which may not even be verifiable. Ben W Bell talk 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoolBozorg (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT HAS HIS BIRTH PLACE AND BIRTH YEAR AND HIS RELIGION?? THAT IS ALL FACT, YOU CAN DELETE THE STUFF ABOUT HIS SON, BUT THAT IS ALL STILL BASIC FACT. DISPUTE IT ALL YOU WANT, FACT IS FACT.— DoolBozorg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Please don't shout. Mønobi 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BIO. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My own father had a birth place, a birth year and a religion, all of which are also facts, but that does not mean he should have a Wikipedia article. Fact is fact, true, but lack of notability is still lack of notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (e.c) While Barack Obama is notable, simply being related to someone notable does not make that person notable. ~~The article is also a BLP accident waiting to happen.~~ (I wasn't aware he was no longer living) Mønobi 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person, just being related to someone notable doesn't make you notable. TJ Spyke 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He died in 1982 so there's no BLP concern toward Obama Sr. Obama's father has been written about a lot. Here's a lengthy piece from the Washington Post that I remember reading just a few weeks ago [20]. I'd be okay having this redirect to Dreams from My Father, but I'm not really seeing a good reason to delete this. Seems like a conversation for talk pages. --JayHenry (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreams from My Father. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreams from My Father This is the same sort of debate for James Hendrix Sr., which was ultimately deleted. I agree fathering one of note does not make one notable. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Accurizer (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment Wasn't Barack Sr. a fairly important economist in Kenya? He may be more notable than people think... I'll see what I can dig up. Zagalejo^^^ 08:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bulk of the article in its current state is a WP:COPYVIO of [21] -Verdatum (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also in favor of Redirect to Dreams from My Father, per my comment above -Verdatum (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreams from My Father Notability does not automatically travel backward through time to the ancestors of US presidential candidates. Edison (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above Will ^(talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dreams from My Father; father on his own is non-notable. RJC ^Talk 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Chicago Sun-Times article listed as a reference is an article on this man by the political editor of a notable newspaper and makes the subject of this article notable, in my opinion. I'm quite sure more media coverage can be found, as Senator Obama's family background has been given lots of attention in the media. 96T (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as above. Apart from his son, he's a non-notable person, and simply being the father (or other relation) of a US Presidential candidate does not in itself make you notable. Redirecting to Dreams from My Father might be the best choice. Terraxos (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, if he Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, Mom and Dad both get their own articles on Wikipedia. For examples of fathers of American presidents who got their own articles, see George H.W. Bush and John Adams. Mandsford (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course fathers of Presidents (and grandfather too, at the least), are notable, but if other people are sufficiently notable this can apply also. If he wins the nomination he will certainly be in that catogory--even if not, there will probably be enough independent sourcing. DGG (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a president yet. I say redirect to the book, or delete. Not really fussed. If Obama does become the US President this can be recreated, as I'd assume the parent(s) of US Presidents are default notable, right? I also wouldn't really object to a well-sourced recreation here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must strongly disagree that the fathers (or mothers) of US presidents are automatically notable. Edison (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for an article of his own and all the important content is already included in his son's article. But a mea culpa here. I fubar'd and misread the status of this AFD and moved the article to Barack Obama, Sr.[22] and then turned it into a redirect to Barack Obama.[23] I've undone the redirect, but left the page at the new location.[24] Including Senior's middle name is not necessary in the article title. *sigh* Yes.. Yes.. I'm an idiot.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the World (animation)

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated and deleted. Although the article provides some indication that the creator is, or may become, notable there is no indication of why this flash animation is itself notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are still no verified reliable sources of notability, the triumvirate of inclusion. The article is doing more to promote the flash's creator than the flash itself. Keegan^talk 04:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've said it once, and I'll say it again — no independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Agree with nom that the creator may be notable, but not the animation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment I've been able to find a few sources, I havn't added them to the article yet as I wanted to get some opnions:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=504159
this one as some info in it, but I can't see the context, you can see a little bit more of it in the google news preview
http://poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=5498&part=1
http://www.poly.rpiscrews.us/article_view.php3?view=5496&part=2
http://www.coldhardflash.com/2006/09/flash-animation-10.html - "10 Most Influential Flash Animations" (2006)

Thats what I have found for now, it is hard to search for "End of the world" and "flash" or "Nuclear" but there are a few. The fact that parodies have been made of it (end of the 'tute & end of harvard (no online video)) would seem to indicate to me notability? Fosnez (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess that you are suggesting that these sources match the WP:WEB criteria:

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

This does not seem to be the case. Most of them, the acadamic ones, seem to refer to a parody of the animation and they are written by university staff. Not only are they not independant of the parody (which is the actual subject of the article), but are not non-trivial publications to present a reliable source as to the notability of the animation. The other articles also seem to lack the status of being a non-trivial source from which to derive notability, including coldhardflash.com. If the animation had been covered by the NY Times, CNN or a major online source it would be a different matter.

The animation also does not seem to fall within either of the other two criteria under WP:WEB.

Being the subject of a parody does not seem to be part of any previously defined criteria, and does not inherently seem to imply notability. In fact it is really only a parody if enough people know about the original, otherwise it is just copied from it or based upon it. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I absolutely love this flash, there is no way it is notable by any stretch of the imagination. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still nothing that amounts to significant coverage from reliable sources, and somehow I don't think there ever will be. At most, it could be given a one-line mention on List of Internet phenomena, but it might be best if it were just (once again) deleted. Not every Internet meme that enjoys a brief period of popularity deserves to be recorded on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule out the ice-capes melting, meteors becoming crash into us, the ozone layer leaving and the sun expanding, we're definitely going to delete this article Oh-kay, so there's no notability or reliable sources in this article. It's got about 26 less than any other animation, whatever. Will ^(talk) 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is meant to contain factual information as an encyclopedia. It should not be cluttered with articles about self-published flash animations (even if they are obscure internet memes) put up simply "For the lulz." (By that, I mean that Encyclopedia Dramatica falls under Wikipedia's spam filter for a reason.) None of the sources cited above are reliable secondary sources. They are all unreliable, unverifiable and mostly self-published tertiary sources, like blogs. I recommend User:Fosnez check out WP:RS to make sure he's aware of what that means. Zenwhat (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per the concerns raised above regarding the possibility to cover this topic in an encyclopedic manner. Hiding T 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - G3 - Vandalism: Blatant and obvious hoax. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald hamsandwich

I tagged this article with {{hoax}} because it sounded fishy. Upon closer inspection after that, I concluded that I didn't need much more to nominate it for deletion, maybe even a speedy G3. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy seeing that Pentridge was closed in the 80's I would say this was a hoax, also I've never heard of him, and I live in Melbourne. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, I searched in Google and did not get specific results. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very nearly a speedy for patent nonsense - a man named Hamsandwich who terrorized kosher food outlets? Not much more to say here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty sure its a hoax. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus, has already been transwikied. Pastordavid (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific journal abbreviations

This is an unusual deletion request. The list does not contain any fatal flaws: the abbreviations are correct, to the best of my knowledge. However, the list is unmaintainable. Every major academic journal (except ones with very short names, such as Nature) has an abbreviation. There are thousands of them. It is not worthwhile to attempt to compile the whole list, especially because librarians already have access to such lists.

The correct way to handle journal abbreviations is to create redirects on an individual basis. I will take responsibility to ensure that each abbreviation on this list redirects to the appropriate target. Then the list can be deleted. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just created redirects to all blue-linked journals that didn't already have redirects. The redlinked journals should have articles, but that's a separate issue. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list is way shorter than many other lists of scientific journals. It should be stopped before people waste time expanding it. The lists of journals in several different disciplines are fine. Having redirects from the abbreviations is great. Some already exist. It is also worth pointing out that abbreviations are not unique. For example, Chemical Physics Letters can be abbreviated to Chem. Phys. Lett. or Chem Phys Lett, or CPL. --Bduke (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notified WikiProject Academic Journals of this debate. It's certainly true that this list would be enormous if comprehensive. --JayHenry (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks like a bad idea to me. While the information may be encyclopaedic, it's almost certainly better to preserve it in the form of redirects, as User:Shalom plans to do, than as a (potentially huge) list. Terraxos (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WikiProject space either WikiProject Academic journals, or WikiProject science. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What use would be there? The articles on individual journals already have the abbreviations. Also the various lists of journals could have the abbreviations added, so a merge there would be more appropriate. I see also that it has been tagged to transwiki to wiktionary. I still think it is too small to do anything with. --Bduke (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Lists like this are useful, and used, because bibliographies have to use the "correct" abbreviations. If you're going through a long-form bibliography and trying to convert it to short form, it's useful to have the list all in one place rather than having to search for each journal individually. One example of such a list is [25]. However, these lists really are huge and labor-intensive---Chemical Abstracts Service http://www.cas.org/products/cd/cassi/index.html sells a CD of their list rather than posting it on the web. This suggests, to me, that the list is unmaintainable in Wiki form, but perhaps a useful/informative page could be written which links to mainstream lists. Bm gub (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing as nominator Withdrew. -Djsasso (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Amur

Withdrawn I'm withdrawing my nom for deletion due to article being ref'd and improved, this is a great result, thanks all for contributing to discussion. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, so 'keep. Punkmorten (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plois explain! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep whilst article is a very poor stub, the team formerly played in the Asia League Ice Hockey major pro league. Would probably pass WP:ORG with a few sources. --Breno ^talk 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want to make finding references for non-notable defunct ice-hockey clubs your no.1 hobby by any chance would you? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much do ;) -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While defunct, the team did still play professional hockey at the highest level available to them. At stub may me all this article may be, but It should at least be that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Professional ice hockey teams clearly pass notability. I've also expanded the stub with a few sources, that were found in seconds. Due to the team's short tenure, it may never be more than a stub. Flibirigit (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Professional team that definately meets the standards. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It was a fully professional team in a notable league. Reso lute 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~~I recall nhl.com referring to the team back when it was in business on at least once, so it obviously passes notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)~~ nhl.com had an article, here that mentioned the folding of the club. Article discusses the importance of the Asian Ice Hockey League. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are no grounds, if properly sourced, to deny the notability of a professional sports franchise; heck, we've got articles on Tier II junior teams. Looks like this is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGTraynor (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bon McDougall

This guy is notably un-notable, PRO racing car driver who never even finished one race. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Participating in the Indy 500 is notable. Given his age it may be difficult to find more information on the interweb, but typically you have to complete some races to somewhere before you can compete at the Brickyard. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1920's I would think it would depend on how large your bank balance was, not on how good a driver you were. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as competing in a professional race at the highest level would indicate some notability, per WP:BIO. If the Indy 500 was it, though, then maybe it is a little too soon for an article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To those who are interested in the "500", participation equals notability. He participated in only one Indianapolis 500, but he probably had a racing career before and after Indy. This article is clearly identified as a stub. As such, it should be an article for further research, not deletion. --Mycroft.Holmes (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" are generally notable. Surely the Indy 500 is a competition of equivalent standing? Pburka (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that a single race does not, on its own, meet this specification. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Definitely a notable treatment modality, not a proprietary or copyrighted phrase (myo = muscle). Current version isn't a copyvio, but it could use some cleanup & expansion. - KrakatoaKatie 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myotherapy

Copyright of: http://www.healingspirit.us/modality-definitions/ (Go to the Myofascial section) Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete! I will be happy to add more to this entry (when I am not at work ;) Myotherapy is an amazing form of muscle therapy, and has huge applications in dealing with chronic pain, injuries and more. I practice it myself daily. That is the best part - it is accessable to everyone. While it is extremely helpful to go to a practitioner for help on a big problem, day to day you can maintain on your own. I look forward to adding to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustypony (talk • contribs)
Erring on the side of caution Myotheraphy seems to be quite widespread with a bit in the media about it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment doesn't look like a copyvio to me. The material may have been copied from that source, but it's been all been rewritten... Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems like the topic is extensively covered in sources in the real world, I can't see the grounds for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This seems to be a proprietary name for physical therapy akin to Rolfing and Acupressure. Its techniques seem to be from the toolkit of general physiotherapy (which I'm currently getting) and I'm not convinced that it deserves to stand by itself. Given the current state of the article, the essence of it could be merged into physical therapy Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability that I can see. It could always be merged into another article, but I don't think we need this one. Terraxos (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless there is much better sourcing to show notability in its own right.DGG (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's Notable. See http://myotherapy.org GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google books search reveals 287 mentions of myotherapy in other publications. The problem with this article is not notability, but proper formatting and inclusion of references - which can be worked on. Marontia (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; the efforts by editors to reorganize the lettered lists are superb. There was not any kind of concensus formed about these numbered lists, however, and I wasn't really even able to just be bold and redirect them , because there doesn't seem to be an easy way to do so. I suggest a clever editor with topic-specific knowledge just go ahead and merge/redirect these in some beneficial way. However, for now they must be kept. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liberty ships by hull number

DeleteThis article and related articles are repeat articles of List of Liberty ships. Redundant material for these ships are not needed. Please note that the majority of the Liberty Ships don't even have their own articles. I am also putting the following articles up for deletion:

Tavix (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can see, these lists fail WP:N and are redundant.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the use in this, they're listed alphabetically already, and the articles are virtually all redlinks anyway... Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We already have a list of Liberty ships that sorts them by name; they apparently were also numbered serially from date of construction. Not sure that one form of indexing is less useful than the other. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral at the moment, I don't see any problem with a list by hull number in itself, I do question if the info needs to be split into quite so many articles. Just eyeballing the size, it looks like the number of articles could be cut by about a third. Anyway, does anyone know if there is a guideline/policy on repeating information just for the sake of a different sort order? If so, then I could form an opinion. -Verdatum (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I created the articles, I was trying to keep them to a small size. I would have no objection to fewer, but longer articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a directory. When did Wikipedia become a dumping ground for such numerical listings? The fact that the same info appears in other arrangements is hardly an effective argument for keeping yet another listing. No more encyclopedic than a listing of all Jeeps made during WW2 by chassis number, or all M1 rifles, or all tanks by serial number. Perhaps it could be placed at Wikisource. Edison (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Perfectly valid list per WP:LIST. I would argue that the guideline that "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial" implies that redundancy between lists organized on different principles is equally beneficial. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentand I would argue: How is redundancy beneficial? All it is is the same information relisted. Tavix (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is indeed mostly redundant to List of Liberty ships, but actually, I think that's the list that should be deleted rather than this one. After all, Category:Liberty ships already sorts them alphabetically; there's no need for an alphabetical list as well. Whereas a list by hull number is information provided nowhere else on Wikipedia; so, I suggest keeping this one and deleting the alphabetical list as redundant to the above category. Terraxos (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wouldn't work because only a handful of ships have wikipedia articles. Tavix (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I placed notice at WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST about this proposed deletion. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paularblaster, Smerdis of Tlön. Also, if a sortable list of all Liberty ships in a single article wouldn’t be so incredibly huge, I would favor the deletion. But given limitations in place, I think the articles should remain. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should have been discussed with at least WP:SHIPS before nomination. A lot of Liberty ships also had US and Royal Navy careers so the matter of 'no articles' is simply finding the correct redirect. --Brad (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems highly duplicative, and a nightmare for maintenance if there were any changes. Why not just make one List of Liberty ships, but SORTABLE by hull number as well as ship name. Hmm, okay, I am doing that...hmm, ok, DONE, have made List of Liberty ships sortable. Instead of 22 or so separate Letter-specific sections, I have edited it now into four chunks: doncram (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Liberty ships: A-F (approx 129kb)
- List of Liberty ships: G-L (approx 170kb)
- List of Liberty ships: M-R (approx 71kb)
- List of Liberty ships: S-Z (approx 167kb)
If someone wants to reapportion those 4 chunks, that would be fine by me. Or combine them into one big list. Anyhow, now to find any one hull number, you can just visit these and click "sort" on Hull number. On average, you would visit 2 of these articles to find any one specific hull number. doncram (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some mathy whippersnapper shoulda pointed out by now, that on average you would have to visit 2.5 of these, to find any one hull number. :) Still comparable number of expected clicks vs. navigating through all those separate small lists. doncram (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of Liberty ships: S-Z is actually about 108kb. There were a considerable number of duplicates, probably unintentionally introduced during the consolidation. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been able to squeeze the pages further (using {{SS}} and carriage returns rather than double pipes and associated spaces)
    - List of Liberty ships: A-F (approx 92kb)
    - List of Liberty ships: G-L (approx 122kb)
    - List of Liberty ships: M-R (approx 51kb)
    - List of Liberty ships: S-Z (approx 85kb)
    - — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lookup by hull number now easy enough to do in the List of Liberty Ships article chunks. Also, note that the following articles should now be deleted:

I don't know how to actually nominate them for deletion, perhaps someone else could help with that?. Note some of them very small, e.g. List of Liberty ships: V has just 2 entries. Bigger, sortable chunks make better sense. doncram (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (potential) nomination of these pages (List of Liberty ships: B, List of Liberty ships: C, List of Liberty ships: D, etc.) for deletion. I have made each a redirect to the appropriate page (i.e. List of Liberty ships: I redirects to List of Liberty ships: G-L — Bellhalla (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the "Liberty ships by number" articles to my userspace, so I can make sure that no information in these articles is lost. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question Hmm, either u don't trust my merging of the Liberty Ships by letter articles (by all means, check my work) or u suspect that there are informational differences between the "by letter" versions vs. the "by hull number" versions, or both? Why keep the ships by letter versions and the ships by number versions at all, even as redirects? Checking just a few, I see a few, but just a few, incoming links to them. Those incoming links should be redirected to the new articles.
  - Comment/Reply You are right, I suspect that there might be some differences between the "by hull number" and the "by name" lists. In the almost two years that they have been around, it doesn't seem unlikely that an editor might have changed links in one and not known (or bothered) to have changed the other. I have no problem whatsoever with your merges. I think that they provide a great solution to the situation at hand.
    - Comment/Suggestion Okay, well u show admirable dedication to getting the best information forward. Here's a suggestion how you could do it: create, in your userspace, a new bynumber table, and merge in all the separate "by hull number" files, like I did for the "by name" files. You will get filesize warnings and this will become a bit cumbersome, it will take some time for edits to appear after the file size gets big, but it is still manageable. (My experience on this is from even bigger temporary files, which went over 850kb, that database dumps used in the history of developing the List of National Historic Landmarks by state, the file was located here in User SEWilco's userspace and the edit history shows its old filesizes.) Make the 400k or so size merged table sortable. Sort it by ship name. Use that in your cross-checking the four new alpha chunk files. Scroll down slowly looking for differences. Hmm, if there is a discrepancy for one ship, I suppose you could want to check the edit history in the source byalpha file and in the source bynumber file for that ship. This may sound like a big task, but I don't know, it could possibly go pretty quickly once you got started. Put in a couple hours to try doing this, anyhow, and see if that eliminates your need to save the byname or bynumber files in your area. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, just because there are few or no Wikipedia links doesn't mean that someone, somewhere might not have a bookmark in their browser for one of the now-redirects of the "by name" articles. Having redirects for those now-deprecated pages seems a natural. Also, to be clear, I'm not advocating redirects for the "by hull number" lists. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about DATE-SORTING I should have acknowledged that although the new tables are SORTABLE for names and for hull numbers, the date columns do not sort properly. That's due to what I call a glitch in the wikitable sorting software, which does not support most date formats. By trial and error I figured out that dates formatted like 23 Dec 1942 and 25 Jun 1943 sort properly (that is, with just first 3 letters of month in "DD MMM" "YYYY" format), while 23 December 1942 or 1942-12-23 do not sort properly. This implemented in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, List of National Historic Landmarks by state, and other lists. Someone could notify the wikitable sorting programmer, or change all the dates in the List of Liberty ships tables, if sorting on the date fields is important. doncram (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Adding a hidden field for date sorting would (from a test I did) approximately double the size of the pages. In any case, if the ships are sorted by hull number, the the dates are going to be pretty close to chronological as a result. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You don't need to make dates sortable by adding a hidden field, which would indeed add size to the pages, you can just choose to format the date itself in the one date format that works for sorting, which I tried to explain. Nice job, by the way, in reducing the size of the pages by your various clever techniques, such as editing out the double column hash marks and so on. I note that you got it down far enough so that if some material was moved from the 2nd to the 3rd chunk, then all would fall under 100k, which is the level at which article size warnings kick in. Thanks for doing that and systematically documenting its effect. I have learned from you and hope to apply in some of the sortable tables indexed in List of National Historic Landmarks by state. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party Crashing

WP:NN Neologism Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Crashing" is a commonly used word in Australia for going to a party un-invited, that would be sourceable and is in dictionaries, but for this entry i'm afraid its: au revoir! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is already adequately covered in Rant (novel). I'm kinda surprised we (apparently) haven't had an article on event "crashing" to redirect this to. It isn't even mentioned in Crash disambig, and Wedding Crasher redirects to Geronimo Stilton, a kids' book series about a mouse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We did. We used to have party crasher, to which gatecrashing was a redirect. It was deleted via Proposed Deletion. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

party crashing and crashing parties are two different things. it's not adequately covered considering party crashing in the real world and party crashing in a novel need to be separately recognized. if wikipedia's about an online encyclopedia it should cover everything, however, because information never needed critics. delete it if it hurts you that much, but it's a nit-picky and arrogant thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathersgospel (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Wikipedia only covers everything that is nessessary, nothing else.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "nessessary" to who? I must have missed that meeting. the wub "?!" 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN, maybe this could be turned into an actual article...something like what Librarianofages said. Oyster guitarist 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of this game outside of the novel. Nothing to do with gate crash (which is probably something we could have an article on regardless of the state of the one Uncle G notes is deleted).--Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -non-notable other than as dictionary term. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment gatecrashing is what it's known as in the UK, and it's not a neologism, it's been around at least 30 years. Merkinsmum 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the article being discussed. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Much lulz. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fictioncruft. The real-world activity of party crashing/gatecrashing might deserve an article at some point, and if it's created this can redirect there, but nothing contained in this article at the moment is worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. TigerShark (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Manning

nn "Idol" contestant Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much as I hate reality TV, it appears that she's actually notable: BBC, Sunday Mirror, Evening Post, Evening Post 2, Ananova, Sunday Mirror 2. That's just from a couple of searches on Google. Somebody who knows how to really search British newspaper Web sites could find plenty of sources to clean this article up. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see she has a lot of trivial information published about her because she was a contestant on a TV show, but, I still think she fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, but I guess we need some more voters. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but WP:MUSIC is very clear and easy to interpret. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." I spent two minutes on Google and came up with 6 such sources. Trivial has a very narrow definition in the context of WP:MUSIC. Trivial: "such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." These articles do not fit into that category. WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, is not a reason to delete, but rather a reason to merge and redirect. Merge and redirect is not a discussion for AFD. --JayHenry (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JayHenry's sources. matt91486 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She appears to have had a career following the series. Brett Leaford (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c everyone has a "career" post-idol, but unless it's notable in itself it doesn't actually make them anymore either... zzz -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but she has had a career that is perhaps more notable than many of the other former contestants. Brett Leaford (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - An appearance on Idol doesn't make one notable, and her "post-career" section is merely a blurb in this whole article. However, the sources above can hopefully be used to clean this article up and take out a lot of the Idol cruft. Jauerback (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pop Idol. The sources posted by JayHenry don't show any notability outside of the show. ^anemone│_projectors 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She wouldn't be notable for her Pop Idol appearances alone, but her subsequent work as a BBC radio presenter is probably enough to pass notability - it's pretty marginal, though, and I can't say I'd mind a great deal if this article was deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in the comment by JayHenry establish a presumption of Susanne Manning's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, added refs do not provide any such thing, I challenge you to show me how! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to quote in relevant part from the general notability guideline:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Thus, references to sufficient coverage of a topic in third-party reliable sources can establish a presumption of notability. John254 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well thats all very good, but she doens't fit into Wikipedia:Notability (people), if you scroll down to "entertainers", you'll find she doesn't meet any of the criteria.

Furthermore, there is still the WP:BLP1E issue. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Susanne Manning is notable per the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which essentially duplicates the general notability guideline, her alleged failure to meet the additional criteria for entertainers does not establish non-notability. Moreover, having satisfied the general notability guideline, Susanne Manning would be notable even if she failed Wikipedia:Notability (people) altogether. As for "the WP:BLP1E issue", there seems to be a consensus in this discussion that Susanne Manning is notable for her subsequent career, in addition to her appearance on Pop Idol. John254 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I think that the jury is quite divided re: whether a job at BBC makes her notable or not (read above), moreover I think that most people, if they actually looked at the media coverage thats been offered up as reference material would consider them trivial as a secondary source. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Editorial decisions about renaming and/or merging can take place on the article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage crisis

One of the poorest articles I have ever seen... looking pretty terminal. So i'm seeing what people think, perhaps we could merge it somewhere? Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The term is so frequently used here that an explanatory article is probably in order. I agree, a badly written article, although someone who cares can fix up the grammar. Apparently, this exists in order to explain "hostage crisis" when people can't figure out the meaning from the context of an article. It seems to be a Wikipedia convention to throw the words in on the title of any incident where people were taken hostage, e.g. Beslan school hostage crisis, 1991 Sacramento hostage crisis, etc. Though it's an overworked media cliche, and somewhat redundant (is there anytime being taken hostage isn't a crisis?), I can't think of an alternative. Mandsford (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (thinking out loud) There are two primary issues with this topic. The first is that there are terrorist and criminal situations and they are similar in some ways and quite different in others. That's solveable with editing. The other is that the term hostage crisis itself is a bit POV. Criminal terminology has migrated to standoff. As for terrorist acts, the governments don't like to use "crisis" because it implies panic/immobilization/etc. The hostage takers certainly see it in a different light. The media, however, LOVE to call anything a hostage crisis. Mechanically, there is little difference in tactics for either hostage-takers or hostage-rescuers/besiegers, but strategically, there is a huge difference when hostages are just part of another action versus the object of the action. I think I would for encyclopedic purposes support a merge into hostage or a new article on standoff that incorporates Siege#Police_actions. That would probably give terrorist hostage-taking short shrift, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have other demands on my time right now, but take a look at these, which I found a few hours ago:
  - Burl E. Gilliland and Richard K. James (1997). "11: Hostage Crises". Crisis Intervention Strategies. Brooks/Cole. ISBN 0534345689.
  - Russell D. Buhite (1995). "A Study in Contradiction: Theodore Roosevelt's Responses to Hostage Crises". Lives at Risk: Hostages and Victims in American Foreign Policy. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0842025537.
  - Stanley I. Kutler (2003). "Hostage Crises". A Dictionary of American History. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 306–307. ISBN 0684805332.306-307&rft.pub=Charles Scribner's Sons&rft.date=2003&rft.isbn=0684805332&rft.au=Stanley I. Kutler&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 9" class="Z3988">
- Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about merging with hostage? That article already has a section on hostage taking; it could easily be expanded to include this material. I'm not totally opposed to keeping this article, but I just wonder if it could be merged somewhere else. Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic topic. Can be fixed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a widely-used term that can easily be expanded into a fine article. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep AFD is not for clean-up and it's not for merging discussions. No attempt has even been made to offer a valid deletion rationale. --JayHenry (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nom withdrawn, concerns addressed. Current version is significantly improved from that which was nominated. Pastordavid (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein - Hopf Drag

Delete there may be something salvageable here, but in its current state it lacks context, notability, verifiability and yes it drops big names but that's not an exception to our inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, as something was salvaged here. I cannot close it as there are other delete voices but perhaps the next passing admin could? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks content. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand thanks to Uncle G's improvements. the wub "?!" 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Uncle G's improvements. It's a good stub, now, and will likely expand. I particularly enjoy the term "Kerrzappp!", and plan to use it at least twice today. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been entirely re-written since nomination, and now contains more-than-adequate references. Tevildo (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability and verifiability have been demonstrated. Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs a bit of fine-tuning to demonstrate its relevance outside the private theories of Bernard Haisch, or worse Thomas E. Bearden. Using Google Scholar you can observe the pattern, that a very small group of authors only write the modern articles on this (except teh acoustic ones) and those articles will only be ever cited by those group again. But that would only imply carefill selection of sources and external links, not deletion. At least I'd prefer to let this run the normal time span. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydes Road Playing Fields

nn local stadium Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no notable teams play there. Punkmorten (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources to attest to notability. No bias against recreation, should sources be found. Pastordavid (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicant Downline

Seemingly non-notable band. Prod removed by anon without comment. tomasz. 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional weak keep. I do believe that the conneticon connection should have generated at least some independent reliable sources on them, establishing notability. Mind, I haven't found them yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't found anything. If someone else does, that might be the only thing that can prevent deletion for now. If nothing at all can be found, I switch to Delete without prejudice, as notability may arise at some future point in time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely nn, no sources, no tour, no album sales, no nothing! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band is completely non-notable. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Medicant Downline is cited as a notable example of the Coldwave genre in the Coldwave(USA) article. Therefore, Medicant Downline is a notable band and their article is significant and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.184.61 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and other articles can't be used to establish notability of an article. If the claim in the other article is referenced by independent reliable sources though, those can be used for this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as nonsense vandalism --Step hen 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BIG BAD Deer Avenger

0 Ghits for this particular game in th "Deer Avenger" series, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As bad faith disruption. (G3) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block user. He's still disrupting the site with another hoax. I suspect a sock; I've seen these sorts of childish TV-based hoaxes before. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. A well-done rescue. Per consensus below, article is helpful fork of the main article. Pastordavid (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea fixtures and results

Delete are the collections of recitations of various teams' results in real and friendly competitions encyclopedic? There are several of this ilk, but I'll test float this one rather than risk a multiple nomination with a confused result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old article with only 1 result on it, nothing done to it since July last year. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Papua New Guinea national football team and redirect. --Bduke (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2007 in Papua New Guinean football, if have one. Matthew_hk t c 08:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say it should be kept in line with the AfD which finished the other day for the equivalent article(s) for Ireland, but as there's only one match listed I don't think it's worth keeping. Delete unless someone feels the urge to massively expand it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep now that someone (i.e. TerriersFan) has made a start on said expansion ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also to Denmark one Matthew_hk t c 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Year-by-year articles don't seem to work for national teams. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still not encyclopedic. Punkmorten (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, outdated BanRay 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BanRay 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per recent discussion on Irish football results Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if I would agree with a merger as well. In any case, this stuff does not really deserve its own article. --Angelo (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and important note Delete - essentially empty. However, this is not necessarily to be taken as a precedent for nominator's comments about other, similar articles. They need to be assessed on case-by-case basis. And judging by the nomination, my reasons for deletion differ utterly from the nominator's. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer empty. Now encyclopedic, useful, notable, sourced... the works. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Bduke. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does absolutely nothing to add to the encyclopedic coverage of football of wikipedia. Robotforaday (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - summary pages of national team results seem notable. We have England national football team results and many others. Plainly the page is pretty useless at the moment but that is a reason for tagging and expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now sourced and expanded the article. More coming! TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Content already merged to more apprpriate topic. Redirect created. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Stadium outfield dimensions

The content of this article was merged here from the main Yankee Stadium article, and since then most of it has been remerged into Yankee_Stadium#Outfield_dimensions (see this discussion about the merge). This article is no longer needed, and I think it can safely be deleted (as opposed to redirected) without violating any licenses. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of great bytes still available on those servers - why go to the bother to delete? CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete as opposed to what? This is currently an orphaned article, and I find it unlikely that anyone would search for this term, so I thought a delete would be more appropriate than merge/redirect. Would a {prod} have been more appropriate? I am relatively new to nominating articles for deletion. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If info is Merged then Delete per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like it should have been a WP:PROD. Nice job on the merge, surprisingly interesting information. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - If the information is all merged in, I don't see how it's necessary to maintain. However, if there's a general concern, I don't see how a redirect to Yankee Stadium could hurt anything. matt91486 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Yankee Stadium. — Save_Us † 10:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. No agreement was reached on if the page was necessary; note that the page in question was updated during the discussion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Elementary School

Unnecessary disambiguation page as none of the schools listed have their own page. Dougie WII (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The lack of pages for the things being disambiguated is not a real argument for deletion. The disambiguation page can only help and cannot hurt anything, so there's no reason to delete it. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is useful, it provides a list of articles that need to be created, and one of the schools there does have a page. Oysterguitarist 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no it doesn't have an article (it redirects to the article on the school district its in). TJ Spyke 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uneeded disambiguation page since none of the 3 entries have an article (the 1 blue link is a redirect to the school district's article). Having a disambiguation page when none of the entries has an article is not helping Wikipedia or anyone else. TJ Spyke 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TJ Spyke. Chris (クリス) (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the schools have pages. Doubtful they ever will as it is rare a elementary school meets the {{WP:N|notability]] guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a redirection page is required because this article is not notable enough to have its own article. It may as well also explain which school is is the redirect for. This school does not deserve its own article and has nor got one. I suspect some are voting on automatic cos its an elementary school. Look at the "article" ... it doesn't have one. Victuallers (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Modify I was wrong. I investigated further. The redirect goes nowhere. The page allows a template to exist for the school district that has all blue links..... but no or v.little in the way of articles. Redlinks would be fine but clicking on Fremont on the template just takes you round in a wasteful circle. THe whole district needs a major sort out. This page is neither here nor there. I hope that someone is not trying to turn Wikipedia into a phone directory. Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone types in the name of the school that is a blue link (which redirects to a school district article), it will say "(Redirected from Fremont Elementary School (Santa Ana, California))", so they will know which one. Why do we need a disambiguation page when none of the entries have articles? TJ Spyke 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that anyone typing in Fremont Elementary School finds what Wikipedia has ... they may not be looking for the one in Santa Ana and may find it confusing that it appears to deliver but doesnt. It may be sometime before they spot the redirect if they don't know where the school is Victuallers (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) see above. Redlinks are fine .... bluelinks that take you on a needless journey are silly Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened is that an IP has redirected all the nn elementary schools to an omnibus page; frankly a not unreasonable action. However, he didn't create an entry for this school which I have now done. Thank you for pointing it out. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a disambiguation page here yet. If the other schools are found to be notable enough to deserve their own articles, then this can be recreated, but for now it arguably violates WP:CBALL and should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - red links are useful and no logical reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. The dab page is valid if there is one blue link. My issue is with the dab page. It is suppose to show the correct link to the article and this does not. So the real question is how to deal with that in the dab page. Deletion might be the correct way to go. But that would be based on the guidelines for dab pages. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK I have relinked the school to meet dab guidelines of making link visible to show it can be done - it can always go back if folks think it looks too ugly :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For categories, lists and disambiguation pages, usefulness is an excellent defense against deletion. It's useful to readers to know where a "Fremont Elementary School" might be located. Noroton (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. No news sources here and a web search reveals nothing useful. Fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Hope Community Church

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines, am unsure whether it is the same as Church of the Blessed Hope or not. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable. The references provided consist of three web sites operated by this very church, plus a book apparently published one year before this church opened. This church is not the same as CotBH; BHCC is an individual, non-denominational church, while CotBH is a denomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally non-notable.--Him and a dog 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The church sounds a good community, but is definitely non-wiki-notable. It sounded as if the founding pastor might be wiki-notable, but there is no sign on google of any plays or poems, and the book writing is as co-author of one book ... not enough I think. Springnuts (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already merged by Euryalus and redirect to district to attribute original authors. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benowa State Primary School

As with most primary schools, I have doubts that this one is notable. I can't find any such assertions. [26] — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears non-notable. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Benowa, Queensland which is not a large article Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability. Oyster guitarist 04:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford above. Not notable on its own. Lankiveil (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge for notability reasons. The article is unsourced, makes no assertion of notability and its subject has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Euryalus (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in anticipation of a merge outcome, I have gone ahead and merged the relevant material into Benowa, Queensland as suggested by Mandsford. If the outcome is not merge, it won't hurt to have this material in two places. Euryalus (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is contained in the suburb article per WP:LOCAL. So the page may simply be deleted as not meeting notability. Twenty Years 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - no logical reason to delete rather than redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd normally say merge, but in this case there is nothing to merge as what is needed is already there (see Twenty Years's comment). Orderinchaos 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few schools are notable (in my opinion), and this isn't one of them. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. Having released just one album they fail WP:BAND and there are no compensating secondary sources. TerriersFan (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chyld

Fails WP:Music with no hope of redemption. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With only one album released, I would tend to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete This band doesn't meet any WP:MUSIC criteria, with a second album, no matter how big a failure it was, they would have. Oh well, this is not a band worth disputing that consensus over...--CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosociality

I'm not digging this page. The term looks like a neologism, and has been tagged for references for most of 2007. It strikes me as a promotional page for certain academics. In any case, a "citation needed" tag on a claim that the term is frequently used has been ignored since February, suggesting that the term is not used much even within the sociological community. Betsy Heavans (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment seems like a legitimate term and idea, more than a neologism, but it is not sourced. eitherway it has a sister article heterosocial.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've put a prod tag on the even shorter sister article. Betsy Heavans (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work though, thought i'd never heard of it before it does appear to be in frequent use and quite well documented. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept is well-documented in the social sciences. The article is too focused on a single reference, but this isn't a problem with the topic itself, and it can easily be remedied. Valerius (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 9500 articles on Google Scholar - I haven't vetted them, but even if only 1% of them are reliable - this concept is notable. Fosnez (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly a neologism, as it has been used at least since the 1970s in thousands of articles (as mentioned above) and hundreds of books (check Google Books). --Itub (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I certainly found references to it when I was studying Arthurian Literature at University.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Notable. Queerudite (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a notable term that would get usage even outside the likes of gender studies and sociology.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this appears to be a notable field of scholarship within sociology. Aleta (Sing) 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators season 1

This series of articles fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, because the information contained in them does not rely on reliable sources, and I do not believe that reliable sources exist for the level of detail contained in the articles. The articles' source is a fan forum, which stopped letting me access it, without registration, today. What the fan forum was when I accessed it recently was several forum members discussing their memories of the shows from the season in question--it seemed to me to be pure original research. I think that the level of detail in Gladiators (British TV show) is obtainable through the one reliable source I found, imdb, and even though that article enjoys very little in the way of sourcing it can be improved and contains a lot of information about the TV show. Currently, that article doesn't even link to these articles about the seasons. Darkspots (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete as per nom. However, I think this info could be trimmed and put into an article about Gladiators, as a show, but not one article per season.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make what I said above more clear, Gladiators (British TV show) has a lot of info about which characters on the show appeared in which season. That is sourceable; the level of detail in these articles, regrettably, is not. Darkspots (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the external links from all the seasons pages that they were on and suggest that the seasons are all put on one whole page rather than eight individual ones because I want them kept on Wikipedia because I think that the information put on them is very useful. DJ Pomfret (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete all. These pages are entirely unreferenced, and their content is basically non-notable fancruft anyway - we don't need to keep this information, even if references can be found. Terraxos (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - verifiability concerns. Addhoc (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animadverto

musical act failing to meet WP:BAND. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to show any notability. The wikilink to the label is deceptive; it's piped to a rigor mortis disambig page with no record label article on it. I failed to find any reliable sources with a google search, and there are none listed in the article. Darkspots (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it may meet CSD A7 too. -- Menti fisto 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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