Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 17

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Slavett

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

Unsuccessful candidate for City Council; fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. Brewcrewer (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very minor official. scope_creep (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't presently meet our notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notable...yet. RMHED (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He actually hasn't been a candidate for anything since the city he would have represented never came to be. That said, if there was any evidence that the individual was one of the more high-profile proponents of the Valley secession movement, I could certainly reconsider. Montco (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Doc glasgow, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Colonial Marines

United Kingdom Colonial Marines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely a non notable fan organization no sources to support notability. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete non-notable fan group who like dressing up. No claim of notability so have tagged it for speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Legal Meta-References

List of Boston Legal Meta-References (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Questionable notability. Delete. Blanchardb (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the related AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boston Legal Star Trek References the editor created this branch out articles when the huge lists were removed from the main article. A single paragraph for these two aspects of the show is sufficient. An entire running list is unnecessary, mostly OR, and largely unverifiable. Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fan listcruft. RMHED (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Boston Legal. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Collectonian. JuJube (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure fan listcruft. Do we have a liftcruft wiki. I think it is a cultural necessity. scope_creep (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denunţul Trădării

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

Self-released demo album with no claim of meeting WP:Music. WP:COI issues, contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I accidentally pressed "Save Page" instead of "Show preview" when there were only about two lines written. However, I have now added more information on the subject, therefore I would kindly urge you to remove the AfD message. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristihainic (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: the same issues still apply.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (even after added info) per WP:MUSIC. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't this band deserve a demo article because of their contriversial genre? (read main article) or is it because it's a demo and the article maker layed it out wrong? Jerry teps 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I also fixed up the page. Jerry teps 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, this demo is the first Unblack musical material that ever came out in Romania, thus it is quite historic!

Can you add some reliable independent sources to the article that discuss how this is historic? That would help establish notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Until then, anybody could check that nothing of this kind has ever been released in Romania.

Their main article was deleted so that will probably mean that this demo will be deleted. Jerry'^teps 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry teps (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Legal Star Trek References

List of Boston Legal Star Trek References (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created after the content was removed from the Boston Legal article for being a huge trivia section that had no actual encyclopedic value and mostly being WP:Original Research and viewer inferred. Almost impossible to source much of what is claimed. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as it stands it's complete OR. However, there might be sources to indicate that this is intentional or noticed. If some were to be found, then we could add it to the main BL article, with an example or two. But as for now, delete it as OR. I (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. A single paragraph in the main article that notes the show uses them and maybe gives one or two examples would be good, I think, but a huge list is not needed in neither the main article nor as a separate article. Collectonian (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely unverifiable. When this type of list appears, I recommend that editors look into starting a wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails WP:NOR, no sources cited. This looks like a cycle. meshach (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a fair few of those Star Trek references are nothing of the sort, just actors who appeared in Star Trek cropping up in Boston Legal. Good grief how much more trivial can lists become.RMHED (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely unencyclopedic triviacruft. Sources wouldn't make a difference either way. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft, cruftcruft, anything more? JuJube (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete fancruft/listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bit too much. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We're some way into the realms of fancruft here. This article is an obvious failure of WP:UNENC. A1octopus (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balkirshna Paudel

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

non-notable bio. no ghits. ^Law/_Disorder 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does't appear to meet WP:PROF, and the only ghits are WP related. So delete as non-notable. I (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROF and WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. scope_creep (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article can be improved to provide some specific reason why he would pass WP:PROF. All it says right now is that he is a professor, and that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I am not really sure know how to evaluate Nepalese academics. According to RePEc, he seems to publish under the name Krishna Paudel, and there are 11 items. Probably not notable as an economist, by international standards. But he should perhaps be evaluated among Nepalese educators, in which case the professor of economics at one of their universities might well be notable in the country, and WP is international. DGG (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet, I see no evidence. international, yes... evidence based too. ^Law/_Disorder 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Note the number of redlinked person names on this page. If one goes to the talk page of the creator of this page, you will see that he created articles for each one of these and all were subsequently delete (several speedily). Looks like somebody wanted to have his/her whole family listed... --Crusio (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established.RMHED (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonic Oath

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

Proposed equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for physicists. Totally non-notable. Probably being promoted by the inventor of the idea. (Isn't Newtonian the preferred adjective anyway?) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At the talk page the page creator states:

This is being discussed in physics forums so it has some notability or it may gain some.

Note the last clause, or may gain some. Wikipedia should reflect notability, not create it. And contributors to the cited physics forum are not taking the proposed oath seriously; some believe it is a joke. Kablammo (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, the oath is not notable, so it should be deleted. I (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For "is being discussed in physics forums", read "is being laughed at on physicsforums.com". See the text of the oath for further clarification that it's a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I read the notability page. I agree that it does not meet the criteria of notability. I think the thing is still under development. So it must be deleted. Zeyn1 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The one reference never uses the term Newtonic Oath, so this looks like OR. See also WP:NEO. --Blanchardb (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Zetawoof, make that an even stronger delete. Maybe even a speedy. --Blanchardb (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think this idea of a Newtonic Oath has been around for at least 40-50 years, and as a in one form or another. Didn't EE Doc Smith describe this a oath in the same cadence of the Hippocratic Oath for engineers in one of this books. I think the article should be rewritten, expanded and sourced added. scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But right now there's nothing to salvage, and no one (yet) has undertaken to do that. Kablammo (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to expand, if I can.Zeyn1 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikemill (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable. Tim Ross·^talk 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to redirect to The Wolf Man. -JodyB _talk 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visaria

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

Fictional place with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:Fiction. First several pages of non-wiki ghits (even when added the word "film" or "movie" to the search) don't come up with more than passing mentions. At best, this should be a mention in the individual film articles or Curt Siodmak's article. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Nom. scope_creep (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either the wolfman film article or the real town with the similar name. There doesn't seem to be enough information to sustain an article regardless of whether it's fictional or real. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It isn't notable, but since it might (just maybe) be something one would search for, redirect it to The Wolf Man. I (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above argument. RMHED (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails Notability and Music requirements. A redirect is unlikely to be helpful. If and when it is a single and meets the guidelines it can be restored. JodyB _talk 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Song

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

The word "rumored" says it all. This is a crystal ball piece, and needs to be deleted until it's not a rumor. Kww (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. scope_creep (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to So Uncool. According to "So Uncool": "The Game Song" was featured in The Sims 2 Seasons Expansion Pack as a radio song. That is a fact rather than a rumor. Only the claim it might be released as a single is a rumor and that rumor is easy to get rid of without deleting the entire article, so I believe the nominator misread the article. The song exists, but there's not enough meat to the article to warrant a separate entry and it violates WP:MUSIC guidelines about when songs get their own entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a single, it meets WP:MUSIC, so I focused on that aspect. If it isn't a single, it simply violates the notability requirement, so it gets deleted anyway.Kww (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jreferee t/c 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity/DB

Objectivity/DB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by the Chief Technology Officer and the founding member of Objectivity, Inc ^[1] with no other edits other than related to Objectivity, Inc. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Objectivity.2C_Inc. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't reach a quick conclusion, but I strongly suspect this is a notable company and product. Per the company's website it is a 50+ person software company with major investors and global distribution, and a product line that has been around for 20 years. A google search reveals 100,000+ articles and close to 250+ news stories. However, as with all software products most of these are passing mentions, download sites, and press releases so it becomes a needle/haystack problem. One beginning of a source is http://www.fcw.com/print/10_37/news/84320-1.html. It's clearly a real company and a real product, anyway. Although there are COI and spam problems, there is a lot of useful content in the piece as written. It doesn't help Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission to jettison legitimate content about a substantial company simply because of trouble with the article. If the subject is notable but the article is messy, it's not a proper candidate for deletion. It can be cleaned up or stubbified. Wikidemo 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am sorry! The article reads like and advertisement. In Googleing the company, I do not see any noteworthy references. I do see advertisements! Shoessss |  Chat  22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of references to the system in Google Books (91) and Google Scholar (600+), some of them fairly "objective". This article has tone problems and goes into unnecessary jargon and detail but could easily be improved. Objectivity/DB is clearly a major object-oriented DBMS implementation that has been around for at least a decade and a half, an eternity in software terms. (It seems to be used more in scientific applications than business, perhaps accounting for its lack of tech news coverage.) I have to ask whether the article should be more about the software or the company. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If about software, a definite Keep. In that case, the whole article must be restructured. However, the article reads like an advertisement. In that case, still stand by my Delete. Shoessss |  Chat  23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and stubbify per Dhartung. -- intgr [talk] 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This was a company which designed one of the first object databases, it was well known and respected in the IT industry. The article needs attention though. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice at all against a recreation from published sources. GRBerry 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Mohammad bin Faisal bin Saud

Prince Mohammad bin Faisal bin Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:VSCA, the only claim to notability is he is apparently a minor member of the (huge) Saudi royal family. Dougie WII 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon my ignorance, but is this the same person as Mohammad al Faisal al Saud? If so, then he's apparently also a relatively important person in finance. [2] [3] [4] (p. 11) - Revolving Bugbear 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is someone else. --Dougie WII 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely to meet WP:BIO and no references. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A notable subject as president of one of the top footbal clubs in Saudi Arabia, but the article obviously need major clean-up. Anyone in a similar position in a western country would not be proposed for deletion. Avoid systemic bias. Phil Bridger 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Yuk, what a poorly composed article. It screams for a re-write. However, the subject may be noteable, per Phil. Majoreditor 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be good to get actual sources here before closing this. --W.marsh 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The guy is part of the Saudi royal family, and as he is president of a well known Saudi football club, is notable. But the article itself is dire, and needs rewritten. scope_creep (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of football club presidency. For the record, though, there are over 500 Saudi princes now, and they are all princes from the day they're born, but only a small fraction of them have anything more substantial than an anonymous playboy lifestyle. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, no evidence this person is really a prince, or even exists. "Prince Mohammad bin Faisal bin Saud" gets 3 Google hits all wiki or mirrors. RMHED (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Saudi royal family is so large that it does not in itself convey notability. Merge a small bio into the article for the Saudi football club he's president of. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Myke Cuthbert (again: there are hundreds of Saudi princes) --- also, this page could confuse WP readers looking for other "* bin Saud" articles. --- tqbf 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for now) Lacking in solid sourcing and evidence, as mentioned above. Could always be remade later with sources by someone interested. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources to prove notability are provided -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, given the lack of arguments against it despite being relisted. Daniel 08:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Svenonius discography

Ian Svenonius discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Primarily as a result of suggestions made in this failed FLC, I have split this article into a number of smaller articles. Mainly, I created The Make-Up discography and Nation of Ulysses discography, and copy+pasted some information into the Ian Svenonius and Weird War articles wherever appropriate. This has made this particular article unnecessary, so, as primary editor to the page, I am asking to have it deleted. Drewcifer 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This article might even qualify for WP:CSD#A7. I don't see any substantial contributions in the history aside from those made by nominator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, any more comments? This page is entirely redundant. Can we just speedy delete this or what? Drewcifer (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horror and terror

Horror and terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page content is strictly a definition in nature, article content was already transwikied to Wiktionary in the past, content nonencyclopedic hodge podge of individual's thoughts on the two terms with no hope of any way to salvage it at this name or any other name DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are some reliable sources here, some references to published definitions which distinguish between the too, but it looks mostly like original research and in particular original synthesis. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The distinction between Horror and Terror is standard literary hermenutics and aesthetics, used especially in studies of Gothic literature. It was first formulated by Ann Radcliffe in 1826 and used by other theorists of the Gothic such as Devendra Varma etc etc. The notion is used in almost all textbooks on Gothic literature and in all university courses on Gothic literature. Other established literary notions are allowed in the wikipedia. See for instance: Sublime (philosophy). Colin4C (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is certainly more than a definition, and I don't see any evidence of original research or original synthesis. In fact it is much better referenced and sourced than the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the individual words "horror" and "terror" have their own ordinary definitions, the theoretical concepts of horror and terror have a unique importance in discussion of Gothic literature, per Colin4C. All that being said, the article could be improved. --Kyoko 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am hoping to improve article with back-reference to Burke's reference to Terror in his essay on The Sublime and also contributions of Anna Laetitia Aikin and Bruhm's Gothic Bodies: The Politics of Pain in Romantic Fiction (1994), plus textbooks such as Angela Wright's recently published 'Gothic Fiction' (2007). By the way Wright's chapter 2 is entitled '"Terror and Horror": Gothic Struggles - An exploration of the sublime in Gothic literature, and an appraisal of the attendent aesthetic debates of the values of terror and horror'. I hope to benefit from her analysis - I just bought the book and hour ago (it cost me £15 so I hope it's worth it...) Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has significant content. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per Colin4C (talk) and Kyoko - Modernist (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming ball round

Flaming ball round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not referenced and not notable. Editor keeps removing notability and unreferenced tag rather than improving the article, seeming to indicate no intention to improve. Editor keeps adding spam link, seeming to indicate real intention for article, to promote the product on a website. Arthur (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised they're not trying to improve the article. They got a whole bunch of warnings, but no helpful comments as to how to improve the entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I don't think this ammo needs a single page. There is a need for specialist shotgun ammunition article. I can't find one. scope_creep (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the author can come up with some evidence of notability. I cannot find a single reference via Google, unconnected to one or another Wikipedia version, for even the existence of the round. Tim Ross·^talk 17:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not establish the notability requirement. Mikemill (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was spank at the Castle Anthrax (delete). Kwsn (Ni!) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Herbert (Monty Python)

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

The article is just a short in universe recitation of facts from the plot section of the Holy Grail article, has no notability or referencing to speak of, and therefore doesn't need to be its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as famous for smarmy punchlines such as "What, the curtains?" Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Comment: I think Monty Python characters are likely to be notable, but I'd like to see references and input from Monty Python experts before a final decision is made on this AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, notability is not inherited, so just because the movie and the broadway show are notable, doesn't mean each character is. If you suspect it is notable, we need to see detailed analysis on how the character was created, how the filming went, and so forth to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Monty Python experts have no special say in this, unless they can give sources. Which, at the moment, it lacks, which in turn makes this not notable, which should be deleted. There are lots of Monty-Python related articles that need to be axed as well. I (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Love the movie, would probably love spamalot. However this is a minor character, unnoted in the wider world. Noone reliable (scholars, books, news articles) has written about it so delete - Peripitus (Talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- As Peripitus -- great movie, great character, would keep if WP were a collection of information and great pages. But it's an encyclopedia discussing real world events. I would think that only frequently recurring MP characters or those that have inspired independent commentary would be notable. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The character also plays a fairly large role in the Broadway production. There is likely enough material overall to warrant at least a short article. • Lawrence Cohen 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does play a larger role than in the movie, but still needs sources to prove he's notable. Which he lacks. I (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per MGM. Non-admin closure. Blanchardb (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki Symbols

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

This is a newly created, very short article which should be merged with Reiki. --Blanchardb (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree. scope_creep (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree this page should be deleted. Reiki Symbols are mentioned in the Reiki article. I created these symbols using Adobe Illustrator. I will reach out to others to add more content to this article. Stephenbuck415 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC) (contribution moved from talk page by nancy 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: AFD is not the place to request a merge. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Matuschka

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

Non notable unsuccessful election candidate. Notability for reasons other than her unsuccessful candidature has not been asserted. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant media coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete She may be a candidate for government, but is not notable in her own right. scope_creep (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Frickeg (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not asserted let alone established.Garrie 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Originally looked at including this within the Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 article; however, I felt it inappropriate as it's merely a listing. Also, electoral candidates are usually significant members of the community they're standing to represent. Would be happy for it to be merged into or form the basis for a Liberal Party candidates article which is more than just a listing. 13:56 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzles (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sometimes, failed candidates are notable for other reasons. Not this person, though, who according to the article is an "administration officer" (paper-shuffler) at a regional university. Lankiveil (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew/asked for closure. Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taepyeong Station

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

• WP:NOTABILITY- A list of every subway or train station alone is not notable. Very few, if any, of these stations are listed in secondary sources, and if they are it is not because of the station itself and it is only mentioned in that geographic area. These articles only have the possibility of being important to a very, very select few of people, and it is probably a stretch to say that much.
  
• WP:NOT#DIRECTORY- Wikipedia is not a directory on where certain trains stations are in Korea. Could you imagine how many articles would be on Wikipedia if we had an article for every destination on every public transport system on earth?
  
• WP:NOT#TRAVEL- Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The only purpose these articles serve is to mention where there is a stop along certain subway lines.
  
• Other points that need to be raised:
  

Most, if not all, of the articles do not cite any sources, and most are simple "Blah Station is on the Blah line. It is located in Blah, Blah, Seoul" and they have an infobox and template of all the stations. The lack of content, notability, sources, ability to expand and the plain unencyclopedic nature of the articles call for a total Delete of each article. I am also nominating the following 250 related articles based on the prior reasons:

Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know "other stuff exists" is not a good argument, but I also know that any proposal to delete articles for the very many railway stations in places like London or Melbourne, would not have any chance of succeeding. These station articles should be given the same chance to grow into useful articles as are the ones for London underground stations and Melbourne suburban stations. --Bduke (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, that is not a good argument. Comparing articles is not a justification for keep or delete, we are here to discuss these articles and whether these articles meet the criteria for deletion, which they do.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into list or delete. A whole bunch of substubs is clearly a bad idea, so putting them all in a single list might be a good idea, but frankly, there is too little content in them. A subway station article needs more information than "X is a station on line Y in city Z". - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOT EVERY TRAIN STATION, BUS ROUTE AND AIRPORT TERMINAL IS NOTABLE!!!!!! </anger> I have not looked at every single one of these 250 (!) articles, but a spot check reveals the same thing. These stations are not independantly notable. Outright deletion is probably too much to hope for, but maybe merge them to some other list that should also be deleted eventually, but will probably be kept at AfD. I (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Railway stations are notable for a reason: there is virtually always an abundance of good source material, and thus plenty of potential for expansion, as we've found in virtually every other country where this has come up. Deleting these because that material is not currently in the article would be pure systemic bias: deleting them not because good sources don't exist, but because interested parties like me can't add them in on a week's notice without access to a public library in Korea. Rebecca (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But what makes these articles notable? Just because there is info about something doesn't make it notable. There is a lot of information on all the bus-stops in Phoenix, AZ. Should we have an article on everyone of these stops too? It isn't a lack of info that these were nominated for deletion, it is because none of the articles assert any type of notability whatsoever, which is key for inclusion in this encyclopedia.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N: "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It is patently clear that none of those advocating deletion have made the slightest attempt to check if there are indeed reliable sources - which, as I have pointed out, there have been proved to be for stations in pretty much every other country where this issue has come up. It is patently unreasonable to expect them all to be expanded on a week's notice when expanding them would require access to a public library in Korea - thus, these are under threat of deletion because of systemic bias, not because they're not notable. Rebecca (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is this a record 250 in one go! I admire the nominators stamina, but to do this afd justice you'd really need to go through every one of them before deciding. Anyways here's one with a claim of notability Yeouinaru Station. RMHED (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (selective) per nom., in particular NOT#TRAVEL is important. Consider a typical "article": "Beotigogae Station is a subway station on the Seoul Subway Line 6." If deletion passes, I would ask the closing admin to look at each page and if any seem to give any evidence of notability to exempt them and relist. However, a check of the nominated station and the first 20 on the list gives no evidence of notability. (And being the closest subway station to a notable landmark does not in itself give evidence of notability). (As they are, I'd even nominate most of the articles for deletion on a travel site) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a good idea, Id support that :-)
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles are remotely purporting to be a travel guide. This is just a not particularly crafty way of trying to get around the above - that they're being deleted for reasons of pure systemic bias. Rebecca (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to accuse me of being biased. The main reason these need to be deleted is that they are not notable in any way, shape, or form, not that I am biased.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of being biased or acting in bad faith - I'm accusing you of perpetuating systemic bias. This material is notable, but deleting it because the sources are in another country is unhelpful to say the least if we want a genuinely global encyclopedia. Rebecca (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic content and a framework for expansion. Wikipedia articles need not be born full-grown. Fg2 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But they do need to be notable, someone please show me notability.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are train stations. Train stations are notable. Fg2 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Fg2 said, see above. They almost definitely meet WP:N, but it's not possible to tell on one week's notice when the sources are in Korea. Rebecca (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe there is an aspect of systematic bias. The nomninator asks "Could you imagine how many articles would be on Wikipedia if we had an article for every destination on every public transport system on earth?". Well, there does seem to be an argument, which I do not really follow, that train stations are notable and bus stops are not. We may not have an article on every train station on earth, but I believe we do have an article on every train station in the UK, and perhaps some other countries. These of course included the 1 millionth article and that was not really very notable at the time, but it was not deleted.If we do not want this, we should attack it head on and bring UK train stations to AfD, not ones that are possibly an easy target as sources are not easily and quickly obtainable as is the case here for Korea. That is the way to systematic bias and that is what I was suggesting in my keep comment at the top. --Bduke (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment although they might each be entitled to an article, perhaps it would be better to have them merged as sections of a more general article. DGG (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel like nominating the UK train stations here, then feel free, I will probably endorse the delete, but again, this AfD is for these articles. I do not care where they are from, they DO NOT ASSERT notability, which is the single most important aspect of any article, no matter what it covers. This not the discussion place for any articles other than the ones listed. I have yet to find one good argument that says these train stations are notable by themselves. I would fully endorse a larger article that covers the entire topic, because the train system itself is notable, but each stop on the system is not notable.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I think RS and Notability are two separate issues. There can be many reliable sources for a non-notable object. To stick to something similar but that I know more about, I'm sure with a Lexis/Nexis search I could find sources detailing the cost, construction, etc., of every subway station in Boston, but that wouldn't make any of them pass the notability test. (I would think that probably very few Boston subway stations would get my Keep !vote if they were nominated for AfD. I agree also with DGG that even if they are individually notable, our readers are better served by a general article on the system itself, branching off into individual articles once they emerge from sub-stub status. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Summing Up So far there have been 5 main reasons argued for keeping:

1. Since there are articles on other train stations, there should be articles on these.
2. There are sources, but they are not easily accessible.
3. Time limit, cannot fix all the articles in such a short amount of time.
4. The nominator is supporting a systematic bias.
5. Train station are inherently notable.

So far none of these reasons have addressed the concerns that this is all WP:OR and that each train station is not notable in and of itself. My responses to the keeps.

1. What is someone said, there are articles on some professors, so there should be an article on every professor. You would reply that that is incorrect, that we need to judge the notability of each person. Same thing here, we need to judge each article as it stands by itself.
2. When has this ever been an argument? Wikipedia states that if content is to be added to its encyclopedia, that it needs "citations to reliable sources that contain these facts." If every editor could state that the reason they didn't add sources was that they couldn't access them, Wikipedia would be full of OR. There shouldn't be an article on a subject until proper sources can be cited (I am guessing I am the only one who has gone through every single article nominated here, I would like to state that my best guess is that 95% of these articles have no outside links, one even states that the source of their info is the sign at the train station, and the ones that do have one link, are mostly just a link to a small article saying that the station opened.)
3. When has time limit ever been an argument? I mean seriously, sources are the first thing that should be put in an article if it is not inherently notable. There has been plenty of time to fix these articles.
4. Um, well all I can say is that I am not. I do not support having articles on any train stations, no matter where they are, unless they are notable for some other reason other than just being a train station.
5. There are very few things that are inherently notable, and train stations are not even close. Examples of inherently notable would be presidents, wars, laws, geographic regions, etc.

I hope I have addressed all the concerns.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominating 250 articles in one group makes it difficult to assess each reasonably. BTW lets take one station Banghak Station its an absolute stub you couldnt write it with less text than it already has. But lets see whats there doing a rough nasty google search(excluding wikipedia) 800+ seperate hits[5] lots of baggage information not relevent to an article but... Did you know its the site of one Seoul 10 best baths, DYK that its one the air quality monitoring sites for Seoul, DYK its planned to be a transfer station to the new light rail network[6] due to be complete 2016. I've just spent 60 minutes researching on this station alone, its going to take take me more then 7 days to form a response about each station. Considering the time constraints of AfD lets speak generally then apply it to these 251 article. Railway station are accepted as notable because they have commonality of information across other articles, plus they also get additional information like User:Mscuthbert pointed out and occasionally there are these abstract associations as shown with this one. So why Keep all because this was the first I chose at random from the list and I found information that warrants an article, its reasonable to presume that there are other nominated articles in this list that also warrant inclusion. Gnangarra 04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for taking the time to do this search. I think if all that information were added to the article, I would still say "delete." I'm not sure that "site of one [of] Seoul['s] 10 best baths" (actually, it's not in the station; that's just the closest station to the sauna [7]), or being one of the air quality monitoring sites for Seoul (btw -- I couldn't find the reference; all I saw was that there was a monitoring site in the Banghak district), or a planned expansion as a transfer station creates any notability. And in particular, I don't think locations near a station give notability to a station. I just did a Google search on one of my old streets (Kirkland St. Cambridge, MA) and found that it has a center for nanoscale research on it, one of the few Swedenborg chapels, and a live theater--is this notable enough to get an article for the street? I don't think so, so I don't think a railway station with similar features would be notable either. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and comment My big concern here is the notability aspect, mostly about what would make a certain train station less notable then another. Just taking as an example this station from the Washington Metro. It contains mostly just the station location, expected year of opening and an infobox. Actually all stations on the Washington Metro have an article, even including the ones on the planned line. So what would make a train station in the US capital less notable then a station in South Korea's capital? Is it just because other station articles have external links?
  The main problem with these stations seems to be that the lack of sources listed makes them appear less notable, and almost OR. There are great sources out there, but because these stations are in Korea the best sources are written in Korean, and these articles were probably written by editors that have little or no knowledge of Korean. Just to show this I took at random Cheonan-Asan Station and instead of using Google I used Naver (a popular Korean search engine). I've found this page that contains a more complete description of the station.
  I think these articles shouldn't be tagged for deletion, what they really need is more work. And if people still want to address the notability of these, then maybe it's time we address the notability of stations as a whole, instead of just looking at stations in one geographical region at a time. That way it wouldn't bring the concern of systemic bias again.— Luccas 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you Lucas that train stations need to be looked at as a whole, because I doubt many of them are notable for just being a train station. The reason I chose these Korean stations had nothing to do with it being in Korea, I just happened to come across them, and realized that none of them were notable. I figured 251 articles was enough, because I can imagine there are probably a thousand articles on train stations on Wikipedia, and I figured I would be boycotted if I listed a thousand articles at once, not to mention the amazing amount of time needed to tag all of them. When I look at these articles, I ask myself, "if you wanted info on train stations, where would you look?" and an encyclopedia is not where I would look, I would look in a travel guide or an atlas, or something like that, but not an encyclopedia. I like Cuthbert's argument, I mean when will it stop, like he said you can attach almost anything to something that is notable. Each article needs to be notable by itself. Ultimately it seems like the best choise here is to create a List of train stations in Seoul, South Korea article which would allow the information to stay in the encyclopedia while also making it easier to read because you don't have to search through 251 stubs, most of which consist of one sentence stating that "X is a train station located in Y."
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and a note to whoever marked these articles for deletion)

I am the author of the 250 "unnotable, contentless, unencyclopedic" articles that you listed for deletion.

About the allegation that the articles have very little content, I agree that some articles could be expanded. But what I suspect is that you just took the article for Taepyeong Station - which admittedly is quite void of information - and just assumed that all of the articles that I contributed over the past few days are like that. Read all 250 articles (which I'm convinced you didn't do). Some of them have more information than your average article on a given train station. For example, some of the stations that you linked for deletion (e.g. Yeongdeungpo, Bucheon, Incheon) are at least a hundred years old, and hold historical significance pertaining to the modernization of Korea. Anyone with common sense would agree that articles on these stations have more notability than an article on some random station on the St. Louis MetroLink, for example.

And Wikipedia is a rapidly changing system where all users can contribute. I broke ground by creating the basic layout of these articles. I don't think, however, that I should be expected to write all the details of every station; that's why I posted these articles on Wikipedia, not my own website. It's up to other users to make the articles more informative, and marking 250 articles for deletion is not the way to do it.

I also sense prejudice against the Seoul subway, or even against Seoul/Korea in general. Take the New York City Subway, for example. All 468 passenger stations on this system have their own article. I'm not trying to deny the significance and importance of the New York Subway, but as of now, the 15 million people living in the city of Seoul and its suburbs are no less dependent on this subway system than the people of New York.

I'm not trying to diss St. Louis or New York here, it's nothing like that. I just smell some blatant bias here.

An average station on the Seoul Subway system has a ridership of at least 20,000 passengers per day. In the course of a year, each station serves several million, and the whole system serves BILLIONS. Just because it may not be important to you doesn't mean it's not important to other users on Wikipedia.

It's saddening that when some people see something they are not familiar with, they assume that it "lacks notability." To take another example, I couldn't care less about a station on the Miami-Dade Metrorail. However, I don't mark those articles up for deletion, because I know even though it may not be important to me, it could be important to somebody else.

Gonzofan2007, you're not the only person qualified to determine an article's notability; the 6.8 million users on Wikipedia are all entitled to their opinions, and they may think differently from you. I genuinely hope that you get my point. Sungminkwon (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because we are clearly all anti-Korean, pro-everywhere else bigots here who are out to get you and anything you create. </sarcasm> The fact that there are articles on other train stations has no bearing on this discussion. We are discussing these on their own merits, nothing else. We are determining whether or not each of these articles has notability as defined by Wikipedia. This does not mean how important something is, or how many people depend on it, or whatnot. It's whether or not they have recieved significant, non-trivial coverage from sources independant of the subject. These, or at least the ones I spot checked, lacked that. Should he have nominated them all together? Probably not, since we should discuss all of them on their own merits. But nominating 250 articles seperately would almost have certainly been seen as a point violation. Of course Gonzofan isn't the only person to determine notability. Hence this request for other people to voice their opinion. I (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant as it been indicated by the nominator that this is intended as precedent setting ...I figured 251 articles was enough, because I can imagine there are probably a thousand articles on trains tations on Wikipedia, and I figured I would be boycotted if I listed a thousand articles at once, ... diff. If people want to write Policy they should do so openly by ensuring people affected by a change in policy are able to be part of the discussion first. Recommend notifying WP:WPTWP:TWP and WP:KOREA would be a way of ensuring affected editors were able to contribute. Gnangarra 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:TRPT not WP:WPT. --Bduke (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we in the United States can have hundreds or thousands of articles on railroad stations within one system, so can Korea. From time to time I've heard users from other countries complain that railroad-related articles are too biased towards America, a myth that I've tried to dispell by encouraging those users to write about railroad-related subjects within their own countries. Deleting these would give the appearence of being biased against Korea, as well as other nations, should anybody decide to tag them for deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Call for general guideline AfD is a bad idea for this kind of the matter. What we need actually is some idea of the inclusion guideline on train stations. I don't think there is one, since if there is one, we wouldn't be having AfD since all we have to do is to follow the guideline. Does every train station automatically notable? Suppose it is, then how about historical train stations? Are we going to have articles on, say, stations that existed in Korea when it was under Japanese occupation? I think the nominator of this afd doesn't understand is that we cannot delete or keep a large collection of articles on a case-by-case basis. To reiterate my point, afd doesn't work on this case. -- Taku (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca. Furthermore, countless AfDs and our local notability guidelines have upheld the principle that railway stations are notable, if not just for themselves than as part of a wider network. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We're already working on defining notability criteria for train/subway stations. We have a start at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). A mass deletion is inappropriate until such a guideline is accepted. Slambo (Speak) 14:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm pretty neutral here, but would had that something has to be decided about stations in the near future. Every UK station has a Wiki entry, and I many a closed station, too. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP ALL They're all notable for each area they serve. It's astonishing to see that those which are terminal stations on some lines have been put up here! JPBarrass (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep First of all, the lumping together of all the subway stations should end this AfD right now. While there are some genuine stubs and questionable articles here, the nominator has made the mistake of also including several very important stations (such as Gangnam Station), making a full delete vote near impossible. Second, I was shocked that the nominator did not post a note over at WikiProject Korea that he was nominating these articles for deletion, thereby soliciting input from people knowledgeable on the subject. Someone else had to do that.

On the notability issue, as said above, there are over 15 million people in the Seoul area, and millions of them ride the subway everyday. These stations are very notable to many people. Do a Google search on some of these stations (in Korean), and you will find stations with near 1,400,000 hits! Having lived in Korea, I would often read articles about different stations in the local English-language press. It may not be notable where you are, but it's darn notable to the people who use these stations everyday, and the external sources are there.

As for content, more is needed, without a doubt. However, if one would just look at the Korean Wikipedia versions of these pages it would be clear that there is a lot of content waiting to be added. Instead of posting a request for deletion on all these pages, we should post requests for translation. Also, please note how much information is contained on the info boxes on each page. We have: the Korean name, the Chinese name (which is important), two Romanized names, the station number, the station type, the platform design, the use/lack of screen doors (their use has become quite the issue/debate in Korea), who operates the station (there are several operators throughout Seoul), the opening date, and the location. This is good, helpful information that belongs on Wikipedia.

An overall discussion on train stations would be helpful. However, for now we are just looking at this AfD, which is rather misinformed, flirting with systemic bias, and ultimately far too overarching to be effective. Otebig (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between a bus stop and a subway station is that when the city transit corporation decides they want a new bus stop at the intersection of Hypothetical Street and Imaginary Boulevard, they can just put up a sign on the corner saying "BUS STOP", and announce a new route; sometimes they'll spend a few thousand dollars constructing a bus shelter, but this is by no means necessary. When the city transit corporation decides they want a new subway station, just the tunnel excavation can take upwards of a year and a half, and the whole process can cost upwards of 30 million dollars per station. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow patterns around the station are permanently altered, as are business viabilities. True, some of these Korean Subway Station articles have only minimal content; this is a weakness of those individual articles, not of the whole class of article. I strongly advocate that these articles be kept. DS (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Obvious Keep per precedent, common sense and significance. Deiz talk 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Mackensen. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as train stations are almost always one of the most notable locations in any given area due to the amount of use they get and for acting as a focus for business activity in an area (almost all train stations I've been to have multiple businesses located at the entrance due to concentration of people in one area). In addition (and as others have mentioned), nominating 250 (!) articles in one shot does not give the articles a fair chance at being resonably evaluated, researched, sourced, and expanded. While likely done in good faith, this is a bad nomination and leaning toward abuse of the AfD system. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to admin and voters Could an admin or some outside of the debate please close this nom as it is evident consensus has been reached. A note to every who voted and questioned my motives or me abusing the system, first I want to state that my nomination was in good faith and I am offended that anyone would question my faith just based on this nom. Second, I want to point out that there is no policy, guideline, or even an essay that points to there being a limit to the number of articles nominated at once. AFD says that if you find articles that are similar (which these are) that they can be bundled in the same nomination insomuch that they all have the same problems. I truly hope that all of you who worked so hard to keep these articles go and expand them and properly source them more than the OR that they are now. I hold no ill-will towards anyone, I just hope that you all assume the best before you assume the worst. Good luck editing everyone!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eparadox

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

Non-notable neologism - 0 relevant google hits. Toohool (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even without the vanity portion of this article, this is a how-to about controlling the tone in an e-mail. The article closes with "The term 'e-paradox' was first coined October, 1999 at Mortimer's in Minneapolis, Minnesota by Adam Moffatt and Kristinn Haraldsson. There may be some people who will be surprised to find out that the article was created by User:Adamjmoffatt Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Original Research! scope_creep (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mandsford's argument. RMHED (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, WP:MADEUP. Snigbrook (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Maynard

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

The article is a small in-universe blurb consisting of plot details taken from the Holy Grail movie whic has no notability and no hope of improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a list of minor Holy Grail characters to merge this in? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be notable either, and how would it be decided who constitutes a "minor" character? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, I just watched this movie last night. He isn't notable, so delete. I (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and same reasons as the Prince Herbert (Monty Python) AfD. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete character is too trivial. RMHED (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough to deserve a separate article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace corps syndrome

Peace corps syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism; the few google hits I get for this topic have nothing to do with this page. WP:SOAP issues. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR. scope_creep (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not neutral and doesn't appear to describe the condition I found described online in more reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just look at it. JuJube (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde (Monty Python)

Concorde (Monty Python) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Concorde is the very minor assistant to Lancelot, and has no notability outside of the movie. As such, the movie is a very small in-universe blurb repeating sections of the plot section of the film article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete as per nom, character is too minor to warrant an article. RMHED (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail --JForget 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Rabbit

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

The article has no notability, as it is just a minor joke in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie. It has no references, and as such is a small amount of original research and a regurgitation of its plot segment from the Monty Python article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) User:Jeepday 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as funny, but not notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail so anyone who wants to read about it can do so in context without encouraging multiple stub articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd redirect it to the Holy Grail article because it's not notable. I (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, or possible redirect the film article. RMHED (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And there was much rejoicing. Doc Strange (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable --lk (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Khai Tam Technical Orientation Manual

USS Khai Tam Technical Orientation Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft with no significant independent coverage. Nv8200p talk 15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The book is referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_Technical_Manuals) and that page is not referenced for deletion. It was in fact that article that inspired me to go ahead and write this one to expand the topic. --Slartibartfast4142 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 20:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancruft without reliable sources. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft & non-notable. --lk (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Friday (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simptimes

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

Contested prod. Non-notable comic which is described by its author as fictional (although I don't think that is what he meant). Appears to be 'published' only when his Dad gives him a writing pad. nancy 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the related article Pigy. Pigy is an article describing a character in the "fictional comic Simptimes" nancy 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Completely non-notable self promotion. No mention of who 'publishes' it or anything like that, it seems like something he made up in grade school. Maelwys (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Found this quote on the Pigy page to fully justify a speedy deletion. It looks like these should've just been CSDd and not even made it as far as AfD: None of the Simptimes comics have never been publicly published and continue to be read by Farrelly-Spain's family. --Maelwys (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A family comic? Completly fails to assert notability. scope_creep (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above this seems to be an unpublished work.--Boreas 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because it's unpublished and therefore impossible to verify the comic's existence. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't presently meet our notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per nom, I just hope his drawing is a whole lot better than his spelling. RMHED (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep due to improvements to article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Reil

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

Non-notable independent wrestler, I've kept an eye on this article to see if anything resembling notability was added but after a few months it's time to go. Fails WP:BIO. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
• Delete, I was neutral about this article at first because the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship (New Jersey version) might give him a slight twinge of notability, but after checking both the reference provided and the title history article itself, it doesn't seem he actually won this title at all. Therefore, delete as non-notable. Nikki311 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm striking out my delete, as I am now neutral about this article again. It is looking much better, but a lot of the sources are dirtsheets (wrestlingnews.com and 1wrestling.com) or title history websites (which have title histories for practically every title that has ever existed). There are a few legit news sources, but I still think the wrestler himself isn't notable. I'm torn, so let the chips fall where they may. Nikki311 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not he's held the NWA Light Heavyweight title (I'm the one who mistakenly added the reference), isn't the JAPW Light Heavyweight Championship just as notable especially being as he's at least one of the longest reigning champions ? He's also had some significant mainsteam press coverage from his capture of a mugger in 2002 and a bank robber in 2004. Also, I have added at least 10 cited references to his more notable matches. Doesn't this cover the minimum critera for WP:BIO ? 72.74.220.188 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems notable. Most of the references seem reliable. I've seen a load of wrestling articles a lot worse than this. Davnel03 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RELISTED since the article is materially different to when all but one of the above editors saw it last. Splash - tk 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per rewrite, notability is now quite clearly asserted by means of many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the version of the article that was AFD'd. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep just about notable. RMHED (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cpl Dustin Jerome Lee

Cpl Dustin Jerome Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Memorial and dog adoption advocacy page with little assertion of notability. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete A puff piece. No notability whatsoever. Its really a personal bio. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a web host, nor is it a soapbox for issues. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]

So how much time to you get before the watchdogs jump in? I had barley started the entry before it came up to be deleted- I thought Wikipedia entries where meant to be for works in progress and editable when new events came about or happened-thats why I started it. Maybe the story won't make national news maybe it will, but this is an event worth noting. I wanted this entry to be a work in progress so that I could finish it as the story developed.

A precedent of Military Working Dogs has already been set, but the Marine Corps so far is not cooperating. Military Working Dogs Right now there are 3 congressmen and and senators involved in this adoption and is still fresh so that it has not made national news yet. Once the story of Lex is over, I think it will be wikipedia worthy. I had to introduce the handler to introduce the K9- there will be more to come and if not then I personally will delete the entry. I respect wikipedia for what is and have no intention of turning it into a political platform or soapbox as suggested but to start an entry on the journey of this dog such as. If a TV show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer is wikipedia worthy then I think that the Journey of a canine that was nearly killed and the family of the dog's master wants to adopt it is. By God it may not be as important as FART LIGHTING- but hey what do I know? ...I think a canine that served his country and nearly died while doing so deserves an entry.

If the Marine Corps caves in (which they probably will) it may not set another precedent for MWD adoptions and set a standard. If it doesn't then feel free to delete the entry, but at least give it some time. I have a feeling the Marine Corps will won't it settled with the least edia involvement as possile but right now if they don't abide then it will be on the floor of the house in a couple of weeks and will be made public. Thanks- DevilDog_99

• Strong delete WP is not a venue for obtaining publicity. WP is not a soap box. When the question of notability is settled in reliable sources, THEN re-add the article; until then, what's it doing here? --- tqbf 04:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, good grief! RMHED (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete , recreated as redirect to Mayhem (band). Davewild (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to The Black Emperors

A Tribute to The Black Emperors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Challenged WP:PROD. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." At this point, there's nothing to indicate that this is an exception (although there is a recently added reference to a single source, put into the article as I was searching for sources). I've been looking for verification through reliable sources on google, but haven't found anything. Unless more substantial sourcing can be produced, I believe this should be deleted per the notability guideline. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its a black metal collector's item; highly notable amongst satanist, but of limited interest to all others. Its was Mayhem's peak. Ceoil 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question From curiosity: what makes this bootleg highly notable amongst satanists? According to the article, "All the tracks in this bootleg are taken from other records that are not considered rare". Is there something else noteworthy about it? If so, it would be much easier to judge the notability of the album if that were included in the article with verifiable sourcing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clutching at straws here. Black metal fans would know the tape, because it one of the few recordings of Dead, but wheather it passes WP:MUSIC, I donnow. Ceoil 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Splash - tk 19:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't notable, so redirect it to Mayhem (band). I (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup. Remember, "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for... deletion." Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is true, as the guideline says, that "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." This wasn't nominated for speedy deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]