Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 25

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A1 by Philippe (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment Pen

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

Contested speedy. Non notable "product". Looks like a hoax. Been deleted once already. Hammer1980·^talk 19:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's not a hoax, but it's fiddly, unencyclopedic detail about an episode of The Simpsons JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 25 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 deletion, copyvio of text released under non-commercial-use-only license. Gimmetrow 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Status of Medjugorje

The Status of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay. Formatted like its copy and pasted from elsewhere. Hammer1980·^talk 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely reads like someone put there essay on here. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Copyvio -- however, with appropriate sourcing (& probably change of article title) this would be as valuable as the many other articles in Category:Marian apparitions. Brianhe (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended from keep after copyvio issue was uncovered. Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://inside-medjugorje.com/ Corvus cornix_talk 00:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as copyvio per Corvus. Now I wish I hadn't spent 10 minutes wikiformatting the article. The subject is probably notable, however, and an article would not be inappropriate. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article at Medjugorje is also related to this debate, as it appears to be an article about the village that actually speaks mostly about the apparitions. Even lacking the copyvio, this article would seem to be redundant to Medjugorje. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:32, 26 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 all. east.718 at 03:24, December 1, 2007

Calabrese (band)

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

This band doesn't seem to meet any part of WP:BAND. Unsourced endorsement from Rob Zombie. Prod removed by IP. No wiki article for their current label Spookshow Records. A google search seems to indicate that it might be a one-shot record company based around Calabrese. -- Swerdnaneb 19:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable band, doesn't meet any criteria of WP:BAND and I agree that Spookshow Records appears to simply be this one band's nom-de-publishing (no sign of any other band releasing anything on the label). I think I'd like them, but.. not notable enough according to our standards for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also: delete Midnight Spookshow, 13 Halloweens and The Traveling Vampire Show. --Stormie (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 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 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex2ube

Sex2ube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Website has not received independent news coverage; the only references given refer to a press release reprinted on two adult industry news sites. Alexa rank 112,888. Criteria of WP:WEB are not fulfilled. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn and merge any useful content at YouTube or better at one of its sex-related knock-offs. JJL (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, seems like wisely worded advertisement. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic, basically advertisement.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge if Pornotube and YouTube have their own sites I fail to see why this website shouldn't. The Pornotube article, for example, contains less information and is not AfD. Either keep them all or merge them into one article. --.Tom. (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Youtube is a huge network, Sex2ube is miniscule, as for pornotube I've never heard of it, so I can't say. Perhaps it should be proposed for deletion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 03:26, December 1, 2007

Capture bonding

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

Previously deleted after a valid AfD, then reconsidered in deletion review and the deletion was endorsed. A new draft was recreated, and it is different enough that it should be reconsidered. Mind you, it is not very different, so consensus should lean strongly toward keep in order for this to be closed not as delete. Chick Bowen 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - A lot of the sources seem to be dubious, after reading the old AFD and finding a problem with one of the sources I support the move to delete. futurebird (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy makes is very clear that it is permissible to cite your own published peer reviewed material. If you are going to declare Mankind Quarterly to be not acceptable then you really should go into the Mankind Quarterly article page and make it clear that it is not acceptable to cite this journal in Wikipedia articles and why. Incidentally, the revision of the MQ page you did is over the top. I have asked you to revert on your talk page. Keith Henson (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think this should have been a speedy G4 (reposting of deleted content). The only substantive change between pre-deletion versions and the current version is that an article by Keith Henson in Mankind Quarterly has been substituted for an article by Keith Henson in The Human Nature Review. Since this was discussed at the DRV, there's no reason why this article should have been restored.
• Anyway, the same problems that were discussed in the AfD and DRV apply. There's no use of the term "catpure bonding" in peer-reviewed psychological literature except in articles by Keith Henson--see a Google Scholar search for "capture bonding psychology". Even worse, except for the Henson article, none of the sources currently cited in Capture bonding use the phrase "capture bonding", with the exception of a self-published novel book by Linda McJunkins. Thus, most of the references used in the article are an example of an original synthesis of previously published material. That's a violation of our no original research policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out that McJunkins' book isn't a work of fiction, so I've altered my statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were right the first time and I was mistaken. It is fiction. Keith Henson (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We've been through this. It's little more than a promotional protologism, highly redundant by any standard with an existing article, and with no independent and credible sources telling us how it is really different. COI sourcing is a major problem. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "promotional protologism," you might note the term was used before Wikipedia existed. I think it's really important for people to understand EP and its minor points like capture-bonding for the reasons Silverman stated:

"My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep0119.pdf

But I didn't originate either EP *or* capture-bonding.

Now the EP model from bleak times a-coming to xenophobic memes to war or terrorism, that I might be able to claim, at least on the points Azar Gat missed in his work. Keith Henson (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" . . . but I'm [in]sufficiently familiar with the history here to judge. Chick Bowen 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.) I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option. It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)" [8][reply]

A bit of history. The original AfD was based on a version of the article butchered by someone now banned. That was in the middle of the Sadi Carnot (also now banned) controversy. The reason was "either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both."

From WP:COI

"Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."

Although interesting in providing a tentative explanation for a lot of weird human behavior, the psychological mechanisms are so obvious to evolutionary psychology researchers that it was considered too trivial for a paper back in the early 80s. So there are not a lot of cites besides my two papers (mostly about other subjects) where capture bonding was used as an example of an easy to understand evolved psychological mechanism.

It's not pseudoscience by (Wikipedia standards) when an article gets published in a peer reviewed journal.

Akhilleus' objection of "original synthesis of previously published material" has more merit. But I think if you read the evolutionary psychology entry, it should be apparent that providing detail related to the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness where some psychological trait was selected isn't original either. In any case, there are equivalent developments in both the HNR article and the MQ article on such subjects as drug addiction.

I welcome people editing this article who understand evolutionary psychology. The only two (both now banned) I have objected to didn't know a thing about EP. Keith Henson (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to whatever may be the standard term, for it is not this. The concept seems to be broader than Stockholm Syndrome, which is I think properly used in a modern political context only. There's no reason to think this is pseudo-science--I think sources could be found for discussion of this concept back to at least the 19th century. However, I ask KH for some source for the definition and acceptance of the term, for none has ever been provided "The term is fairly widely used on the Web and has begun to show up in books" with one self-published fictional book cited is not sufficient. This is particularly relevant as the term used out of context would suggest something in chemistry. DGG (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This version, although different, seems to have the same faults as the last one. There is no evidence that this is a notable psychological concept and, dispite his obvious efforts, Keith Henson has not been able to address this point. It is my personal view that this is pseudoscience as well, although it seems deleteable as non-notable. Most examples of pseudoscience are simply ignored by main-steam scientists, and it appears that that is what has happened (quite justifiably) to this poor hypothesis. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to call it a "poor hypothesis" then how about generating something better?

The rules for EP reasoning are that *every* psychological trait humans have has to be either the direct result of selection or a side effect of some trait that was selected (with a possible corner case that a few traits might have been fixed randomly).

So, for example, the nearly universal trait of humans seeking status makes sense as a directly selected trait because you can see that high status males in tribal situations sire the majority of children.

Drug addiction, on the other hand, only makes sense as a side effect of some other trait since it is obvious that lying under a tree wasted on plant sap is a way to be eaten by some predator.

Within these rules how do you account for the way Patty Hearst responded to being abducted by the SLA?

If you can come up with something better, I will be happy to rewrite the article with your EP reasoning for what's behind Stockholm syndrome, etc. I am far from welded to the idea; I only used it as an easy to understand example in two articles. Those articles were about far more important subjects, how/why do people get sucked into cults, and what are the psychological mechanisms behind wars.

Further, it's not like I claim to have originated the idea. According to Dr. Leda Cosmedes, it was widely discussed by Dr. John Tooby with other graduate students in the early 80s.

If you are good at this, try coming up with an EP explanation of hypnosis. I have been considering that human psychological trait for a decade without making progress. The high powered researchers in that area of study have recently been trying to apply EP selection rules to hypnosis. I don't think much of their efforts so far.

There is a lot of status to be gained by the person who can put an EP explanation on hypnosis. Keith Henson (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• RE Rename I am not adverse to using another name for the concept if there is anything in use. This term is reasonably descriptive and reasonably short. I have used "social reorientation in response to capture" as the an equivalent (awkward) phrase. Agree that out of an EP context it could sound like something out of chemistry. Don't remember if John Tooby used the same term. Will ask Leda Cosmides. Agree that Stockholm Syndrome doesn't work here. Stockholm syndrome is the *outcome* of the operation of an evolved psychological mechanism that was essential for survival up to fairly recent times. Maybe the acronym CBM for Capture-bonding mechanism or some other acronym is the way to go. Am open to suggestions. Keith Henson (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is still no evidence that this term (or the concept under any other name) has gained currency in the scientific or popular literature. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "no evidence." Trying Google, 1,330 for "capture-bonding", 1,270 for "capture-bonding" -henson How many wikipedia entries have even less hits than this? (hit random button a few times)

223 for "Charles E. Kearney"

163 for "Pearcea rhodotricha".

1,300 for "James Howard-Johnson"

106 for "Knapton railway station"

79 for "Moses G. Leonard".

and

861,000 for "Stockholm syndrome" (Which is not a very good article, but not worth rewriting because whatever you write gets clobbered in a few days.)

2,140 for "stockholm syndrome" "capture bonding" (That's strange. Now it says 3,600 for "capture-bonding" -henson)

Now I know it is possible to salt Google, but you can look at the dates on the capture bonding pages and see they were built up over a number of years.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:09, 29 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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Keibler

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

I know nothing about wrestling but Martina Keibler isn't mentioned in any of the refs. Also I get zero Ghits here. Possible hoax. I am happy to withdraw the nom if she really is a famous wrestler! TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The years she supposedly won "PWI Woman of the Year" someone else did. I think it's a hoax too. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax, it's some stuff copied from Trish Stratus and fiddled with a bit. --Stormie (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, blatant hoax. Nikki311 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - thanks folks, that's what I thought. I have speedy tagged it (since I AfD'd, it is procedurally better for another admin to delete). TerriersFan (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 03:27, December 1, 2007

Kenneth Alan Miller

Kenneth Alan Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A biographical article about a political activist. The article has lain orphaned and unreference for over two years. This is little assertion of notability. A google search indicates this person is indeed an anti-sweatshop activist, but I cannot find (and the article does not reference) anything about him (so the article seems to fail Wikipedia:Verifiability). There is no indication, and I cannot find any evidence that, Mr Miller is a notable, important, or influential activist, and there appears to be no evidence that the necessary 3rd-party coverage (per WP:BIO#Basic_criteria) exists. Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:25, 25 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 deleted per CSD G4. Recreation of deleted material, content was "substantially identical", reasons for deletion were not addressed. --Stormie (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Van de Wetering

Marion Van de Wetering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. An article on this individual was the subject of a successful AfD nomination last month. While it may be a considered for G4, I note that the criteria for speedy deletion requires that the article be a "copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." This article is not identical to that which was deleted; in fact it is much shorter. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Who's Who citation established notability. Vividfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a citation in The Canadian Who's Who does not in itself establish notabilty according to the guidelines, I do think it an important source. That said, I have one question: Does Van de Wetering have her own entry, or does the information provided come from her husband's entry (or that of someone else, for that matter)? I ask because spouses, parents and children receive mention and little more in this publication. I note that no page references are provided. Certainly a Canadian Who's Who entry devoted to Van de Wetering would be a good start in meeting the guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination neglects to mention that the previous AfD was subject of a an 22 October deletion review (closed 27 October). Victoriagirl (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A published author, and a database entry by itself is not evidence of notability. If there are no better sources (by which I mean reviews of her work), we don't have enough information for a biography. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I hate it when someone tries to do an end run around a deletion, DRV endorsement, and salting by creating a new article on the same topic, with a minor orthographic change in the title. There's nothing in this version to make me alter the opinions I expressed in the previous AfD and the DRV. Deor (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Address the issue, not the process. Vividfan (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, gaming the process isn't acceptable. And note that this looks like more of the Mark Bourrie edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the new sources (not the orthography) make this ineligible for speedy G4 deletion. And I am seriously unimpressed by the subject lines used in Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs)'s earlier attempts to recreate this article after the previous AfD. But as for the present article: it seems her accomplishments consist of two small-press books and participation in a law-school contest documented only by a press release. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 26 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. Eluchil404 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Rand

Number One Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod tag changed to merge tag but the information is already at the intended merge target, Flintheart Glomgold. This is a fictional coin that has made two appearances to date, one appearance of no consequence. Information is already covered in the main article and the obscurity of the reference makes "Number One Rand" a highly unlikely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Since info is already at Flintheart Glomgold, no need for this article ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Exists (maybe) in the world of cartoons. Non-real world, and details are already in a merged state vis-a-vis Flintheart Glomgold. PKT 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 03:28, December 1, 2007

July 2005 Jerusalem Peace March

July 2005 Jerusalem Peace March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable (site no longer exists); Notability: was written before proposed event which was unlikely, and in any case never happened Avi (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Reads like an out of date advertisement ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it probably didn't happen; see this posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 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. — Scientizzle 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whorld

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

This software does not seem to have been the subject of any independent articles or reviews. No assertions or proof of notability. Borderline spam. Delete TheRingess (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I was the original author of this article, and I do not, in any way, have any association with this software or its programmer Chris Korda. I haven't been on Wikipedia for long, so I do not know if the notability rules have been changed or not. I will leave this for the community to decide whether it merits deletion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The charge of spamming is quickly dismissed on the grounds that the wording used to describe the creator of this software is not too kind, but the article gives me the impression that the purpose for which the software was made is by itself non-notable, and more so the software itself. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources. --Tikiwont 09:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete I'm doing a bit of WP:IAR here on BLP grounds. This article is obviously going to get deleted here anyway, and the history shows up stuff that's upsetting an individual needlessly, so let's not wait. Contact me if anyone has a problem with this. Doc^g 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April Eden

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

• Delete: Non-notable actress per WP:BIO. Apparently the greatest claim to notability is as a seamstress on a DIY network show (which does not have an article here). Author's only contribution. No third-party references, just links to the DIY show/book and her own resume/portfolio web site. It appears that Ms. Eden herself has found the article and was quite displeased.[9][10][11][12] —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. The actress or article doesn't assert or comply with notability. Rudget _talk 17:31, 25 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 没有公众舆论. Go find consensus at the talk page. east.718 at 03:31, December 1, 2007

Translation for those who don't read Chinese: No consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

東北大學

東北大學 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-English title, can be merged by utilizing Northeastern University (disambiguation) ✉ Hello World! 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per nom. Is it my browser or is it viewable? Rudget _talk 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Needs to be on the university page itself, and who's gonna search on the english wikipedia with chinese characters?? Malinaccier (talk •contribs) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - good point! Rudget _talk 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't (see comments by various users below) --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. "東北大學" does not disambiguate into different English translations, it can be translated directly as "Northeastern University". So I believe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is applicable here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (changing vote to merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), see below. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can be translated, but in the Japanese case the usual English term is a transliteration of the Japanese pronunciation of the characters, not a translation at all. This is a wider problem (see below). --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Since the page's title is not in English and is no use to those using the English Wikipedia, this should've been speedly deleted. Doc Strange (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an entry, just a disambiguation page; the rules are not so clear here. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Let's face it,non-english people may come across english wikipedia and will be able to read this article.It will be niceif they can read part of it.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the English Wikipedia, meaning that our articles are supposed to be in English. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If Keep, then the article has to be listed in WP:PNT and moved to a Latin-alphabet title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not, since the whole point is that the same title in Chinese characters has multiple readings across multiple languages, in this case Chinese and Japanese. cab (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely! --Paularblaster (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per TenPoundHammer. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply because it is a non English title. Per WP:ENGLISHChris! _ct 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, disambiguation pages are not articles but they are navigational aid, in a same way redirects are not articles, though they are at the article name space. There are many non-English redirects at Category:Redirects from alternative languages and it is accepted on Wikipedia. What if there are more than one possible target for the title? There should be a disambiguation page. --Kusunose (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this specific page, one of the disambiguation target is Tohoku University which is not known as "Northeastern University" so merging is not appropriate. --Kusunose (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep because the deletion and merge arguments are unconvincing.

• WP:ENGLISH --- This is a disambiguation page, and User:Kusunose provides a reasonable account of why disambiguation pages with foreign titles are useful, since redirects from such titles are already widespread. This is a clearly a case where policy has not caught up with actual need, not where you can just WP:BASH and be done with your argument.
• "Who's going to put non-English into the English wikipedia search box?" I for one do this all the time, especially when looking for information about topics from regions of the world where name transcriptions are done however-you-damn-well-please, like Korean, Hokkien, or Arabic, and I don't want to bother to play the exponentially-expanding guessing game of trying to figure out which parts got capitalised or hyphenated or spelled with one of three or four potential consonants or vowels or whatever.
• "Northeastern University" --- no one refers to Tōhoku University this way.

The main reason I'm not voting strong keep in this specific case is because the modern orthography for Tōhoku University is 東北大学, while 東北大學 is only pre-war orthography in Japanese, and in modern practise (especially what people type into a computer) will only ever be seen in Chinese publications in HK or Taiwan. I'd be convinced to vote delete if someone addressed the above three arguments. cab (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — per English Wikipedia usage and WP:DAB guidelines. The only 2 articles which mention any form of 東北大學 are Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) and Tohoku University, hence the dab was limited to only those 2 entries. (The latter also mentions 東北帝國大學 further down in the article). None of the other articles in Wikipedia even remotely mentions any Chinese characters resembling 東北大學. Therefore merging the Chinese characters into the dab page for Northeastern University (disambiguation) would be a bad idea, since it suggests a novel and false usage in the English Wikipedia.--Endroit (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a dab unless one of the universities can be said to have a stronger claim on the name, in which case a hatnote directly to the other university would be better. Taemyr (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not an article, it's just a disambiguation page. Haukur (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMO this would set a very bad precedent for expanding the incursion of unreadable (to the vast majority of EN readers) and unmaintainable (by the vast majority of EN editors) non-english characters into WP:EN. As there are only two articles involved, the disambiguation function can more effectively be accomplished through Wikipedia:Hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Weak keep. I think my main concern was that page such as this could become something of an unmaintainable orphan and a magnet for pov edits as well as garden-variety vandalism, as the vast majority of editors would not be able to decipher the content. However, I'm encouraged by the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages and the comments of JHunterJ that there may be sufficient interest among knowledgeable editors to provide some level of quality control.

• Unutterably strong keep until something is done to address the problem in general terms. This is one of a number of cases where different Chinese, Japanese and in some cases Korean phenomena are all identified by the use of the same Chinese characters (known as Kanji in Japanese and Hanja in Korean), but the pronunciation in the different languages and hence the English transcription are very different. Tohoku University uses the Kanji that would translate as "Northeastern university", but in English it is never called that, it is named by the transliteration Tohoku University - the typical disambiguation "Northeastern University can refer to" would not apply to Tohoku. My own view is that hatnotes would be the best way to solve the problem, as I am little uneasy about the use of Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja even as disambiguation (but some users do use non-Latin scripts as a tool even on English wikipedia, as was pointed out above); but until all the other cases are addressed and a consensus emerges about what to do with names that have the same Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja but completely different English transliterations. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not at all convinced we should disregard WP:UE in this case. I agree (with Bkonrad) that this would be a very bad precedent for the English WP. This is easily solved with a hatnote or two. Keeping this page invites far more problems than deleting it. I may be misunderstanding the argument, but the points made by Paularblaster for his "unutterably strong keep" all seem to relate to the ability to use non-English characters to find articles, which I don't think is the purpose of a dab page in WP:EN (per consensus). SlackerMom (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a very bad precedent would be deleting disambiguation pages for different pronunciations/meanings of identical Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja. If this encyclopedia is going to cover East Asian phenomena it will have to include the way they are written in the native languages. Given, therefore, that the different Chinese/Japanese/Korean will be present, it will be both useful and interesting to be able to see when and how they refer to different things, i.e. to disambiguate them in some way. To do this by translation or transliteration will only be possible by favouring one of the meanings/pronunciations over the others - precisely the sort of bias to be avoided. The fact that, as others have attested, non-Latin scripts can also be used for searching is a further reason, but is not my own main reason, which is this: there is in general no obvious, unbiased way of applying WP:UE in such cases without losing information. In this particular instance I think a hatnote would do it, but there are other examples out there that would be harder to solve, and I can see this becoming a precedent for a creeping obliteration of useful information that, due to the nature of non-alphabetic scripts, cannot easily be stored or presented in any other way without bias. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd personally be fine to delete this page and not even bother with the hatnotes (due the orthography issue I mentioned above), but deleting this dab page unfortunately won't save you any dangerous precedents. See 文, 饅頭, 琵琶, etc., which would be much harder to deal with using only hatnotes. Arbitrarily picking one language from among Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Vietnamese to transcribe the dab page titles is an even worse solution. See the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) for more. cab (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) and putting a disambig message at the top of the article, per 东北大学 and 東北大学. There seems to be disagreement over the utility of having the title in Chinese characters. I believe that disambig pages may be useful for pages like 琵琶 and 七夕, for example. But consider that in this particular case, we're talking about a disambig page with only two entries. I think 东北大学 and 東北大学 offer the better solution here, in that they are both redirects. And really, it doesn't make sense to me that those two pages are redirects while 東北大學 is not. I would assume those other pages are redirects based on common usage. Likewise, someone searching for Tohoku University would more likely use "東北大学" as opposed to "東北大學". Making this page a redirect would still allow users to search using Chinese characters - they would get to Tohoku University in the same number of mouse clicks, and actually get to Northeastern University in Shenyang in one less mouse click. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What I see here is a deeper problem which doesn't really allow for this information to be placed within the article. I imagine that, this is purely assumptive per the above comments, that most people get annoyed when they see Chinese characters within an article. Now, on top of that we have more than one meaning for the Chinese characters... OMG, surely this is some sort of violation of WP:NPOV because we're putting much emphasis on these characters, right? Wrong! I think the disambiguation here follows the spirit of the Manual of Styles for DAB's. I also think we should have a link to the Chinese Language version... the problem: where should it be? Should English Wikipedia have the disambiguation or should the Chinese Wikipedia, should it be within the main articles or the language bars of each main article? From what I recall, the little language bar on the left side just under the "search" and "toolbox" is where I remember seeing translations. (usefull too). Also, last I remember, such as the case for multiple sclerosis, we usually put the other "appellation" at the top of the article. So, what's the problem... Oh yes! Now I remember, most people have this belief that DAB pages don't need references and don't need to be verifiable whereas if we put the information within the article then you need a proper citation, etc... (Also some policy I remember reading... this is my comment and I'm not adding the delete or keep. We're supposed to come to a consensus! I think keeping this page has no real effect, deleting it will mostly create disappointment and removed some interesting information which should remain somehow on English Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:CaliforniaAliBaba highlights another obvious problem with this particular DAB page. Tohoku University is only referred to as 東北大學 when you're reading about it in Traditional Chinese. It is written as 東北大学 in Japanese. So if we're accomodating for the written Chinese name of non-Chinese universities that may be named 東北大學, we should really put Northeastern University in this page as well. Likewise, we should then make a DAB page out of 東北大学 and basically making it a duplicate of 東北大學 - 東北大学 refers to both Northeastern University and Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) as well when you're reading about those two schools in Japanese. I believe Chinese characters in some DAB page titles are useful (namely, those subjects where the common English names are romanisations of Chinese characters as pronounced in different languages and dialects), but in this particular case, we are overreaching the function of English WP here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Northeastern University, with appropriate hatnote on Tohoku University. CyclePat, most users above are not saying that this information should not appear in Wikipedia or that Chinese characters should not appear in Wikipedia; rather, the title of an article should be in English whenever possible, with useful information about foreign translations in the body of the article. Also, remember that the purpose of the English Wikipedia is to provide information in English to readers of English—this certainly can include useful information about foreign languages, including translations, but the information has to be useful to and focused on persons reading English. --Russ (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly good dab page, since it's not an article, it doesn't have to have an ASCII title. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perfectly good dab page already exists at Northeastern University (disambiguation). Well, that dab page also needs to be fixed up: "Northeastern University or 東北大學 can also refer to: Northeastern Illinois University in the United States" makes no sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ENGLISH.--Jerry 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Official policy clarification: several contributors to this discussion have inappropriately referenced WP:ENGLISH. Article titles should certainly not be in any language other than English. Deletion criteria clearly state, however, that "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages." (my emphasis). If redirects, mutatis mutandis disambiguation pages. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as a dab page. While 東北大學 is not currently used for Tohoku U, it was only 60 years ago. Therefore, it would still be useful to have a dab page which refers to all the possibilities in whichever language uses them. And, as a dab page, WP:ENGLISH does not apply as dab pages are not articles (see Paularblaster's comments directly above). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as written (that is, if there is no primary topic for the dabbed phrase). If a primary topic does exist (and it seems that Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) may be the primary topic), then I would support a redirect there with a hatnote to the other entry -- but the discussion of primary topic should be raised and held at Talk:東北大學, not here, which is why I'm voting Keep at this point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Northeastern University is not a good choice for target of the redirect since that article does not mention the 東北大學 use. If it is edited to mention that use, then that would be the third dab entry, and it should be kept (and moved to 東北大學 (disambiguation) if there is a primary topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment #2: take note of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals‎#CJKV disambiguation pages and consider weighing in there -- this kind of issue will come up again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I fail to see why we accept GERMAN LANGUAGE TITLES on _articles_ when they are clearly not English and can't even be typed, and cannot accept this title. Or diacritic marks that are also not English. This isn't even an article. 70.51.10.176 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right: it isn't an article. No one here is claiming it is. Rather (and as several others here, including myself, have pointed out), it is a disambiguation page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because English is a West Germanic language. --72.79.16.72 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:ENGLISH. --72.79.16.72 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)— 72.79.16.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - This particular topic seems to be a bit narrow in coverage. Would be a much better dab page if it covers the title 東北 instead, in my opinion. Aquarius • talk 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many disambiguation pages which only have a few links on them. This one isn't that small or that unusual. DAB pages can have as few as three article links on them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Not a slightest chance of English usage. I would understand a case for disambig of foreign words in Latin script, but in cuneiform, — no way. `'Míkka>t 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do a little better research. Chinese characters are not cuneiform. They have some similarities, but are not related.···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ENGLISH. A disambiguation page is unnecessary because romanization of those characters are different in Japan and China. It is reasonable to expect that the user of the English Wikipedia would use English or the English romanization of those characters rather than the characters themselves. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects from Chinese characters are common and covered by WP:SPEEDY#Redirects. If the redirect target is unclear (no primary topic), a disambiguation page is indicated. What shall the disambiguation page be called in that case? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a disambiguation page with only two items listed. Given that the name of Tohoku University is not actually written as 東北大學, but instead, 東北大学, it's pretty clear we should redirect this page to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). And note that both 东北大学 and 東北大学 are already redirects. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If your proposal for a primary topic is implemented, I agree (as I noted in my vote above). I'm not sure if the consensus on primary topic should be built here or on Talk:東北大學, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this AfD has mostly been discussed outside the simple context of: do we need a disambig page with only two topics, one of them being the obvious primary? I initiated a discussion at Talk:東北大學, but there doesn't seem to be too much participation. Given the amount of discussion here, I don't want to unilaterally change the page to a redirect. So if this AfD does not result in a redirect, I will most likely bring the article to a second AfD and start the discussion off in the right context. The proposal in this AfD was to merge to Northeastern University (disambiguation), something which I no longer agree with. I would start the second AfD as a proposal to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of confusion here. 東北大学, 東北大學, and 东北大学 are only using different versions of the same hanja/kanji and refer to the same universities. Both Japan's Tohoku University and China's Northeastern University are written as 東北大学 in Japanese language, 东北大学 in simplified Chinese, and 東北大學 in traditional Chinese and traditional Japanese. See the articles of the two universities on Japanese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia. They are written in the exact same way. The difference is only regarding the English names of them. --Saintjust (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except traditional Japanese hasn't been used since WW2, while both simplified and traditional Chinese are still in current usage. So anybody searching for 東北大學 will most likely be looking for the university in Shenyang. There's not much of a point keeping this page a disambig page. There are only two items on it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Bradshaw

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

Not sufficiently notable Lrjlo (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain associate professor of geography at the University of Nottingham, with two books. Have not yet checked to see if more can be found, DGG (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Bradshaw is very significant academic in his field, and more sources should be available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nom makes an empty claim with no evidence whatsoever. Unless Jrjlo is from the academic field, I'll consider this a bad faith nom. --.Tom. (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in San Marcos, Texas

List of churches in San Marcos, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Ichabod (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of info, nor a travel guide, nor a collection of external links. The only thing these churches have in common is their location. Useight (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Non-encyclopaedic, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Tx17777 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. We can't just go and list every city's religious areas! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Malinaccier, we list a lot of different areas for a lot of different cities, including churches. The argument here is that this particular article does not contribute encyclopedic content to WP, not that it is overkill. A lot of WP could be discounted in that way. • Freechild'sup? 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an arbitrary list that adds no encyclopedic content, as is this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Making a note of the series of church-related lists that are being nominated currently ([13], [14], [15]), let's not be arbitrary in which articles are going down. • Freechild'sup? 15:16, 26 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. Any re-creation must have sources. Cool Hand Luke 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulator (structured product)

Accumulator (structured product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original contributor without improvement. The article appears to be original research and is not supported by reliable sources. Evb-wiki (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have asked for opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitely NOT a main-stream financial product, not supported by the single source (which is a single page). Besides the lack of verifiable sources, and the likely lack of notability, the article suffers from a lack of specificity - I really can't tell exactly what the article is talking about. But - just guessing - it looks like a fairly exotic option combination being sold as a get-rich-quick scheme. If it could explain exactly what the combination is, and could explain the costs (there are no free-lunches in finance), then I might say "Weak Keep." But at best it needs a whole lot of work. Smallbones (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern from the source is "because more premium is earned by selling two puts" whereas the article talks about a series of daily up-and-out forwards. In all likelihood, if this type of thing isn't clearly explained, we will be misleading our readers. Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete People will trade just about anything. This sounds like just a minor variant of a knock-out option. It should be merged with Barrier option. Ronnotel (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Lacking in evidence of notability. Don't believe this fits the bill. Good sources required; if none, this must go. Merge?--Samiharris 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until sources are found. AnteaterZot 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If User:futurehawk is interested in userifying this article to continue working on it, let me know & I'll restore it into your work space. — Scientizzle 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]