Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need for a redirect--JForget 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Palace

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

Procedural nom. Was tagged for speedy deletion as pure vandalism. But possible hoaxes are sent to AfD. In any case, unsourced biography, not clear if there are sufficient reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Pascal.Tesson 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I love it when he did the push-ups! Delete as dude ranch muffins. No results found in Google News Archive that aren't misspellings of Jack Palance. No person by the name of "Jack Palace" is found in the Social Security Death Index. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News host on a Boston Radio station isn't much of a claim to notability. Acting and death details added by IP, probable vandalism. No IMDB page found, and he's not on any Emmy winner list that I can find. Article's creator made the only major edits that can be considered credible. I don't see the subject as being notableHorrorshowj 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as likely hoax per WP:RS; no evidence of Emmy at IMDb, for example. JJL 01:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, possible hoax. Yamaguchi先生 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jack Palance as plausible misspelling. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax and BadJoke. Masaruemoto 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jack Palance per Zagalejo. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I nominated for speedy deletion so just adding my 2p worth here. Hoax or (just possibly) attack page. Springnuts 08:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fairly obvious that this idiotic story is a hoax, written by a Briton or Canadian (Palace is buried near "Boston harbour") who imagines that Yanks would call their favorite (oops, favourite) radio broadcast "NewsStation". Clue for you next time, asshole... Radio stations here are W--- in the east and K---- in the west. Mandsford 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect - likely hoax. Addhoc 23:32, 20 October 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, though this closure is not in any way an endorsement of the blatantly incivil behavior shown toward the article creator in this AFD. --Coredesat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin

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

Stanley Dunin is a non notable aerospace engineer who fails all 6 points of WP:PROF. All scientist have been a part of something, nothing makes him exceptional. Also, being born in Poland moving to the US doesn't make him important by any means. Thousands of people move to the US, nothing makes him stand out. No independent, reliable sources exist to prove he is notable, and notability is not temporary. Simply being named by a Senator does not make you important, or notable. Being a business consultant doesn't make you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Didn't we just do this? And weren't you the nominator then, as well? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About a month ago. I don't see any difference in doing it again. The article is vastly different, with all of the original research removed. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CO, I'm a little confused--you say it's improved, and yet you nominate for deletion? DGG (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It hasn't improved. All of the OR research was taken out and no independent, reliable sources have been brought to show the article's notability or importance. Carbon Monoxide 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I'd like to ask: when do we plan to stop wasting time with Dunin-related AfDs? Don't people have something better to do like, say, build the project? Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, most users are rather partial to some zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles, so unfortuna tely the answer is no. But that doesn't stop you, the user who hates zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles from writing a few articles. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This time a firm delete, as no independent sources attesting to the importance of this individual's contributions have been brought forward in the intervening month. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this as last AfD was less than a month ago. This seems to me to be verging on an abuse of the AfD process. If I hadn't have participated in the last debate, I would prob have closed this. WjBscribe 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WJBscribe, I would hardly call this abuse of the AfD process. If the last AfD was speedy keep or even keep, sure. But both AfDs have closed with no consensus. Carbon Monoxide 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wouldn't of course. I think its high time we brought in a proper rule against such repeat nominations though - all it takes is one delete outcome at AfD and articles tend to be gone regardless of the number of times they have been kept previously. It leads to excessive amounts of time spent by people defending articles that would better be spent elsewhere. WjBscribe 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm shocked at your tone. Carbon Monoxide 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WJBscribe, I concur that repeat nominations can be abusive, but (particularly in the absence of such a rule) I think a month is sufficient for a no consensus close to be brought back. That's ample time to address sourcing concerns, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even close to meeting the general notability criteria - the first reference is nothing more than having your name mentioned in a government letter, which doesn't count. The second reference apparently indicate he was part of a major engineering project - ok, but every major project by definition, involves hundreds of staff, so this is meaningless. Lastly he was a consultant on a report - the reference isn't about him, so this again doesn't count. Addhoc 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Addhoc. I disagree with the process wonkery going on on this AFD. Consensus can change in less than a month, and this is not an abuse of the "process" at all. Majorly (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources fail to establish any sort of notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Deor 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe Dunin's aerospace engineering work to be notable - in particular that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of launching a geostationary satellite. The sources don't confirm all of this at present but it seems to me a little pointless to delete this article only to probably end up recreating it later when further material is located. This man is not a figment of someone's imagination - he clearly exists, the problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved to more encyclopedic standards. However, the article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there. AfD isn't cleanup. WjBscribe 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has been around for more than a year and a half, and because of the contentiousness surrounding it, I feel sure that extraordinary efforts have been made to find reliable sources. That none have been forthcoming suggests that your "when further material is located" is oversanguine to say the least. Deor 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think now would be an excellent time to find further material. Tim Vickers 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Fails most notability points therefore shouldn't be here. — E ^talk_BAG 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most rational explanation for the failure to produce sources by this time is that they don't exist. Waiting for them to be produced is thus an inherently indefinite enterprise.Proabivouac 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think relisting is acceptable considering that the last one closed with no consensus, and that extra work has been put into determining the importance of the satellite claim in the meantime (in particular, Talk:Stanley Dunin#Notability of spacecraft guidance work). Even if the "calculated the most efficient..." part can be sourced and re-added, it doesn't appear to be something which has been recognized as a significant contribution, and on current evidence it sounds more like something that he was asked to do as part of the team rather than an important theoretical breakthrough (i.e. an implementation detail that any such project would sort out, as opposed to some pressing theoretical problem that had the field's finest minds stumped). Thomjakobsen 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the individual is a notable recipient of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal and has sourcing to that effect. Yamaguchi先生 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaguchi先生 (talk • contribs) [reply]

  Wow, that would be an undisputable reason to keep. However, I am afraid you misunderstood that statement. Harold Rosen received the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for that work (1982). IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Recipients --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reworded that sentence to avoid confusion. Tim Vickers 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Working for someone who received a notable award is not notability. In general when I see such a claim in an article I start looking more closely at other claims, as it's a very telling bit of puffery. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The life of this individual is not covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. The article thus fails to meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep once again. Article has improved since last afd, even the nominator says so... clear proof of nominators keep listing til I get it deleted mentality.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator did not state that the article has improved per se, but that original research had been removed. Naturally, that's an improvement, but one which also lays bare the fact that no reliable source attests to Mr. Dunin's notability.Proabivouac 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable - even more clearly so now that the OR and non verifiable information has been removed. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the article has improved since the empty sources and the roundabout references to Elonka Dunin have been removed, that still doesn't make this person historically notable. Was this article here just because of Elonka Dunin? Will we remember this person in 100 years? Mindraker 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WJBscribe. I also completely agree that this is abuse of AfD. Tim Q. Wells 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, so trying to form a concensus is an abuse? --Slarti (1992) 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The other two discussions ended with no concensus (which defaults to keep). I bet if it defaulted to delete you would actually want this discussion. But, of course, defaulting to delete would be absurd so here we are to actually form a concensus. --Slartibartfast1992 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. The abuse has been in the protection of this and related spam. 72.106.196.73 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.106.196.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding comment added by user:Disavian.[reply]

Comment - I am traveling, always edit anonymously, and what business of yours is it to purport to tag comments in any case? 72.106.196.73 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because anonymous contributors don't typically get any say at AFD. If you wish your input to be considered for AFD, please consider signing up for an account, it only takes a few minutes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Their contributing... CO 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the fear is that anonymous IP voters probably will lead to sock-puppeting [1], instead of constructive criticism. I'm not accusing 72.106.196.73 of doing this, but you can easily see how it can be done. Perhaps this article could be boiled down and merged with Elonka Dunin's article, avoiding the whole deletion process? Mindraker 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Elonka Dunin's article is the appropriate place for this information. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an idea. I'm quite suspicious of this article being here, for the only reason it might be here is the link to Elonka's claim to royalty -- see: this link surprise, the second sentence is that he is a "Count" -- and it references, surprise, surprise, Elonka's personal web page. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. Mindraker 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little bit like a personal attack on User:Elonka. Tisk tisk. Also, that link appears to be a mirror wiki; you're just citing an older version of the article in question. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being critical, yes. I'm working on the Dunin disambiguation page and the whole issue of royalty comes into question: see the old version of the page here and the link cited here. It's not the first time that people have used Wikipedia to make claims to royalty, you know. Mindraker 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I came across something similar to Dunin (surname) recently: Griffin (surname). I was somewhat surprised to see such a thorough article about a surname. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (although I have some vague reservations about bringing this back to AfD so soon). The claims to notability made in the article when it was nominated for deletion a month ago were largely debunked over the course of that AfD. I think that shows some value in nominating borderline notable articles for deletion, many of them appear notable because the authors of the articles have puffed them up with over-reaching claims. The article last nominated for deletion claimed achievements for Stanley Dunin more correctly attributed to other people. With those spurious claims now removed from the article, it clearly fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Stanley Dunin was a member of a team that put up a satellite, his role and contributions were such that his name does not appear in NASA histories like this, I see no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On a related note to this discussion, I consider the rarity of engineers on Wikipedia an example of our systemic bias, even though systemic bias is typically portrayed as being overly western and/or academic. I also believe that a month is too soon to hold another deletion discussion, and that there should be a guideline (not a policy) somewhere about how long you should wait before trying again. There's probably already an essay about it somewhere in project space. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone was lamenting the scarcity of poets (while defending a NN poet), so I told them to start with Category:Poetry awards and mine for redlinks. Category:Science and engineering awards doesn't have as many as you think (most of the major prizes have 100% bluelinks, which isn't true for poetry) but it does have some. Best start there, with the engineers that other engineers have recognized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also all the members of the National Academy of Engineering. Several hundred, and almost none have a WP page. Membership in the US National academies is generally considered a certain indication of notabilityDGG (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am normally very much opposed to rapidly repeated AfDs, but the previous one was no consensus, not keep, and was no consensus in good part because of extraneous factors such as family relationships. Read it--I consider it a travesty. See Dhartung's comments there and here, which I fully support. See what I said there about the nature of the references used then. The AIAA paper that remains cited in the article has him as a junior author--and it has been cited only 7 times in the whole period since 1962. DGG (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Established after much ado as non-notable. Brunonia 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its a damn shame that it took three separate nominations to finally get to the bottom of this, but there is no doubt in my mind that this calculated puff piece was disguised to cheat our notability guidelines. I think good faith has been exhausted here, unfortunately. Burntsauce 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Slarti (1992) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I support the work of Elonka Dunin, and it is really obvious (to me) that some folks on Wikipedia really have it out for her, but on this one article I have to agree, the subject fails the relevant guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some do have it out for her. Speaking for myself, I had no problem with User:Elonka (and supported her most recent RfA) until I witnessed - and was ultimately myself the victim of - the hardball tactics to which she resorted to defend this vanity series. Several administrators have carried her water, proxying for her original research and/or threatening, megablocking and irrevocably violating the privacy of users who've attempted to scrutinize these articles. These articles must go for many reasons, but another very good one is to protect editors who mean only to uphold our sourcing policies from the vindictive actions of their creator and her IRC-based allies.Proabivouac 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just don't see notability here, at least not in anyway that is verifiable with reliable sources. Sarah 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator and Burntsauce. No offense to anyone but nothing notable here, sorry. Thats just how it is. If its deleted and if anyone finds any non-trivial reliable sources on this, feel free to recreate. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn for Elonka. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete (as article creator). Life's too short to deal with griefers, let's just delete. Back when I was a new editor in early 2006, I created this article about my father in good faith, about an individual that I felt meets WP:BIO. He was born to Polish nobility, was involved with the launch of a historic satellite, and helped with the cracking of a famous code. After I created this article, per Wikipedia guidelines I asked an uninvolved editor to review it, and they gave it a thumbs up. Now, if I would have just created the article and then never edited Wikipedia after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Wikipedia editor, it seems that some other editors are using this article about my father as a constant target as a way to seek revenge against me for other disagreements on Wikipedia. I've seen editors come in and systematically dismantle the article, removing a sentence here, a paragraph there (yes, even removing sourced information) until they get it down to a stub, and nominate it for deletion again. My 70-year-old father (who really has led a remarkable life and has already overcome incredible odds at even surviving the chaos of World War II) truly doesn't deserve this kind of constant harassment. And to be honest, the information about him doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Wikipedia wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Wikipedia's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elonka, removing original research isn't "harassment." Threatening other editors for upholding the sourcing policies, using back channels to get them blocked and their privacy irrevocably violated…that's harassment. Such machinations have de facto banned me from most of the spaces to which I used to productively contribute, brought Matt57 one step away from a formal ban, all to protect these articles from scrutiny. Fact is, Matt57 was right. Many other people are seeing that now. This article will surely be deleted, and if policy is to be upheld, without reference to personal alliances and favoritism, more will follow. But there's nothing you can do, is there, to undo what your IRC friends did to me.Proabivouac 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion isn't about one of the many editors of this article or any past Wikidrama, it is about whether or not this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please do not allow this discussion to move off topic. Tim Vickers 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Elonka, please be assured again, this is not about you or revenge or anything, its about: whether the article meets notability criteria. Almost everyone here has said delete in this pretty much extensive discussion and given their reasons especially the nom who laid it out. None of these people had any 'griefing' to do or wanted to take revenge on you. Just for you, I'll withdraw my vote. Please see the opinions of uninvolved editors. I hope you'll be able to see all of this impartially. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen much less notable articles that has been kept based on the argument that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". If there is any original research there that Elonka does not verify them, we should keep them out. Many of the humanities majors and their publications are really working based on trust and assumption of good faith on the part of those who collect the data. I haven't checked all the sources closely; others can do. I myself, in my vote, have gone beyond the letter of wikipedia to its spirit. Let's separate this discussion from Proabivouac's case or Matt's case. --Aminz 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Elonka and Sarah. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AFD should not have been re-listed but rather closed on its original nomination page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-noteworthy - also, let's watch the close of this Afd to ensure it reflects policy and indeed consensus this time - no shenanigans. And, Ms. Dunin, your comments above are very touching but at odds with this quote..."Please don't assume that I made this page because I actually like my father" [[2]]. I for one don't even know you, but this gentlemen (who seems very nice and must be quite capable) doesn't meet notability guidelines. A cursory review of your editing shows that you know these policies well. Your remonstration above can be reversed: would you have created this page if the subject was not your dad? I think not. 75.224.244.206 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — User:75.224.244.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandahl 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberettia

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

No such country: Ethiopia & Syria are not adjacent countries. The link does not mention "Liberetta"; perhaps the original author meant Eritrea? Otherwise, this is a hoax. This is the only article the original author created, who has not contributed to Wikipedia since. llywrch 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mish-mash. Among other things aside from the unverifiability, Afar is not a city. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a clear hoax. --Oakshade 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who knows, maybe five years of Wikipedians forgot about this one country.... Dylan 03:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Afar is a region in Ethopia, not a city; not adjacent to Syria; 0 relevant Ghits - hoaxaliscious. SkierRMH 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No such country. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Mindraker 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge one item from the list to B-52 Stratofortress. There are two other entries on the list that could also be merged, but I am not sure where to merge them to. --Coredesat 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 Stratofortress trivia

B-52 Stratofortress trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The title alone tells us this is WP:TRIVIA. Most of the information on here plays out like an "I spy a B52" game. None of it is in anyway academic or notable. Second nomination Bulldog123 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A nice idea in having it, but if the main article is too long, trim it - don't shift it elsewhere. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into the main article. A number of these things are well-known lore (e.g. "BUFF"), others are specs (fuel gallons), others are of marginal importance (nose-down attitude), others are easily discarded (crash info, borderline memorial). If the main article is too long, split it according to WP:SS, and have the courage to cull. --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If we keep it, some other self-important deletionist will nominate it again, and we'll be doing this in perpetuity. PS, if you don't like the title, rename it, but this article was much more than just trivia. Not that the facts matter in a Trivia AFD, or we would have a lot less of these frivolous AFDs to contend with. - BillCJ 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete then just move the actual "good trivia" like that BUFF stuffs in the main article ForeverDEAD 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. and merge anything non-trivial to the main article. Crazysuit 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all trivia most of this can easily be written into the main article and a few things can go. 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
• Comment to authors... if ONLY you had listened to the suggestions made in the last debate, when everyone was rooting for you. This is more history than trivia, but the trivia label makes it seem frivolous. Bring it in for a landing before you get too many more hits. Mandsford 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the referenced information specific to the aircraft back into the main article, if it is not already there, then purge the three fluffy bullets at the end of the miscellanea. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect without deleting because it is short and sourced enough to be part of the main article and because it passed a discussion just a few months ago. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There should not be such articles. Technical facts presented in coherent form belong to main article. Tribia belong to garbage bin. Mukadderat 01:21, 25 October 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--JForget 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maori +separatist

Maori +separatist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have no idea what this article is about but I am fairly certain that it does not belong on Wikipedia. (possibly relevent polcies and guidelines : WP:NN, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT) Guest9999 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Maybe it's code? Bulldog123 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this looks like original research & unless it can be referenced fast it has to go--Cailil ^talk 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not totally original research but certainly a bit of a personal essay. If it was better named should be a redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#New_Zealand --Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or better yet, to Tino rangatiratanga. Not with this title, though, so delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as essay. I am, however, creating Maori separatist as a redirect to Maori protest movement, of which separatism plays a role --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR.-gadfium 01:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- would redirect to Maori protest movement as recommended above, except with the + sign, it's not worth keeping. Dylan 03:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Boils down to someone's racial generalization that Maoris divide the world into two groups of people... Maori and non-Maori (Pakeha). Author apparently thinks that the concept is unique to Maori people. I suppose the white residents of New Zealand would never do something like that. Mandsford 17:33, 20 October 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 and redirect to MAME. --Coredesat 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Giles

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

Placing for deletion because this person is not independently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines, and the article about the subject arguably WP:BLP due to a lack of reliable third party sources. Do not be fooled by the two references cited in the article -- one is a primary source, a link to a website operated by the subject, and the second is a lawsuit between Sony and a former employer.

To recap: there are no reliable third party sources published about this person, period. My motion is to delete. Burntsauce 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to be verifiable. No news articles to be found and I cannot see any assertion of significant personal notability that would attract others to write about him. Certainly fails the requirements of biographical notability as the article stands - Peripitus (Talk) 00:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to MAME, the project for which he's best known. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to MAME. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging, as there's no independent sourcing and none of it is particularly relevant to that article. Thomjakobsen 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a redirect to MAME for reasons mentioned. The article gives off the look and feel of an online resume and lacks non-trivial sources about the subject. Yamaguchi先生 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as above; sources aren't about him but about the project. No apparently relevant Ghits to prove notability. SkierRMH 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. verifiability problem. Mukadderat 01:23, 25 October 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. --Coredesat 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech in popular culture

Georgia Tech in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivial mentions of Georgia Tech in various media. This could easily be done for all schools. No reason why Georgia Tech should be treated special here, else it be fancruft. Note that this is the second nomination. Bulldog123 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate information and a list of loosely associated topics. In The Devil's Advocate Pacino tells Reeves that one of the interns on their law firm goes to Georgia Tech. And in Deliverance a car license plate reads "Georgia Tech." Indiscriminate trivia, list the few notable ones in Georgia Tech. Crazysuit 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a list of every time someone mentioned a school in a movie is not worth an article. Ridernyc 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reluctantly I said it the last time too, even if it is my alma mater. I don't see much change. But we have to find a place for the Marilyn Monroe picture, dammit! Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can and should be done for all major schools where there is enough material. There is here. Six major books, a dozen major movies. Remove the one or two minor one. There's no justification for removing an article because some of the content is unnotable, that's an editing question. On the other hand, if we did want to have a 200,000 article WP, that would be a useful criterion:2 dubious sentences = delete. DGG (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete any article or section that ends in "in popular culture" Man It's So Loud In Here 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every IPC article is bad, though this is an example of why such articles are hated so much. This one is both rambling AND a wreck. It's every trivial mention of Georgia Tech, including (a) a "Georgia Tech notebook" seen on screen (b) Al Pacino mentions that someone went to Tech (c) license plate in Deliverance (d) characters in certain novels were said to have gone to Tech (e) Marilyn Monroe and Brooke Shields wore Tech outfit; etc. Mandsford 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passed an earlier discussion with a keep, but two months ago. Also, the article helps demonstrate the influence of Georgia Tech on popular culture. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I've stated to you before: things can be in AFD more than once. This isn't a real reason to keep something. Consensus can change. RobJ1981 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Article is well-referenced. Complaints of trivial entries sound more like a content dispute. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial dumping ground. A prose should be on the Georgia Tech article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 04:09, 25 October 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. Sandahl 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative Isomorphic Multichannel Marketing Analysis

Quantitative Isomorphic Multichannel Marketing Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not make clear the difference between this and data mining. No evidence that this is a widespread term. No Ghits for "Quantitative Isomorphic Multichannel Marketing Analysis". Alksub 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears to be a spam vehicle for the company given as reference links. I've removed the external links as there is no mention of this concept at that site, and so they add nothing to the article. No search hits, no references, just a lot of vague marketspeak and a title formed by squishing five buzzwords together. The single-purpose account behind the article's creation forgot to log back in for the second round of editing, and their IP resolves to Ashburn, Virginia — very close to Reston, Virginia, where the upperquadrant.com domain registrant is located. Coincidence? Or is this marketing company just trying to write a really great article for free? Thomjakobsen 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Expeditiously redesignate into a demonstrably less visible state - Either spam, completely made up or sourced from a single unverifyable place that reads far too much Dilbert. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crap article, per nom. It's poorly written, unreferenced and likely just a marketing vehicle. Majoreditor 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without the spam link it's just unverifiable gobbeldygook (no insult to turkeys or goblins intended). SkierRMH 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete just yet -- please review the rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanfromVA (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article still has no reliable sources and is unverifiable. Thomjakobsen 22:33, 23 October 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 per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan (Warriors)

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

Doesn't seem notable, seems like fancruft, lacks sources Pilotbob 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This would be better with sources, and isn't fancruft. With a few in-text citations, it would be better. Crowstar^{Crow callsTalon Marks} 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Crowstar, and I vote to keep the article. It doesn't contain fancruft. It contains vital information on the universe of that series... Though, yes, I suppose citing sources would be better, but the article doesn't need to be deleted. It just needs some work. TakaraLioness 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with them both I think we should keep it because the article isn't fancruft...If you need sorces I could surely find them I found them once before and I could find them again.VampiricCat 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — VampiricCat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per the arguments used at deletions for Bits of the Exalted series and List of ancient jedi... Falls into Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT as an unsourceable plot summary that only has in-world context. Not only is the article unsourced to reliable places but appears to be unsourceable. I cannot find, and doubt there is, any third-party writing about the clans inside Warriors (novel series). At best it should attract a small paragraph in the book series article (if even that can be sourced) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not fan site. No independent notability. --S.dedalus 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is so badly written I have trouble figuring out what it is. Seems to just be character summaries with no real world notability. If this is saved it needs to be massively rewritten.Ridernyc 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is complete and utter crap. We've had this page for over a year... Nothing is wrong with it. It's not fancruft -it very clearly explains what the Warriors universe is like for those interested or confused by something in the books. And FYI, we HAVE references! Just look at the frickin' bottom of the page. We just don't cite every little thing... But, if you want that done, I'd do it. But don't nominate it for deletion just because of that - especially when you have no real knowledge of what the page is. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, I think you are being far too extreme here. If you think something is wrong, give us time to fix it, don't be an ass and jump strait to deletion. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not that the article is poor but that the subject is inherently unencyclopediac. It is not verifyable to third-party reliable sources...only to sources from within. If there are no significant third-parties writing directly about the subject then no amount of work can save the article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or transwiki to a fan wiki, if they even want it. Incoherency can be solved by editing, but a lack of out-of-universe reliable source material cannot, and I see no indication that substantial amounts of such source material exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Shinigami (Bleach) article fancruft? No. Is the Clan (Warriors) page fancruft? No. They both provide factual information about their respective universes - they are exactly the same in that respect, why is this one being put up for deletion, though? And I don't get why you continue pressing that these do not have sources - THEY DO! Just look at the bottom under "references." Every single novel of the Warriors series acted as a reference for this page! If you want specific page numbers, this can easily be done. All I'm saying is - yes, we CAN add in "better" sources. Give us a few weeks to do that rather than just deleting the page! --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of thousands of popular culture articles on wikipedia. I'm not fond of the category, but the solution is not to delete individual articles, where people have spent hours and hours to get things right. It would make more sense to try to get consensus to create a guideline to disallow this kinds of articles altogether. But even if such a guideline was approved, some respect for all the work people have spent on these articles is needed, and the information should be moved elsewhere - not deleted. Mlewan 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: from the other keep comments, it seems clear that the page is actually both useful and used by people. To me that is a pretty good criterion to keep the page. It is certainly possible to improve it - a lot, but it serves a purpose. Mlewan 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL#It_is_useful. Metros 10:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that usefulness on its own is not a sufficient argument to keep the article. Neither is the fact that people spent a lot of time on it. Neither that there are thousands of other articles with similar content. And so on. However, to make an overall judgement it would be silly to completely ignore those factors. Mlewan 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And what is this article about? Unsalvageable; no sources, incoherent, in-universe, no notability, fancruft, the list goes on. Recreate it if you want to make it coherent and take the time to source, but the current version belongs in the wastebasket. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The other Warriors pages are about the characters and the books themselves. What else are we supposed to do for confused fans? Go to each of them individually and explain it? This has many articles that would not fit onto any other page. Seriously, I can't see what's wrong with it. Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also wanted to add, none of it--none, zip, zero--is fancruft. Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is this fancruft? It is totally logical and explains the geography, cats, customs, history, and etc. of the Clans in the series Warriors. This needs to stay and it shouldn't be deleted.

-CloudWind

• PS: I agree with whoever said we should have time to fix it before it is deleted.
  • PSS: I've used this article many, MANY time while writing fanfics, and others the same! Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.204.174 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 68.2.204.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. This article is very useful. It gives you tons of facts and helpful information for warrior series readers!! And when something when needs work, you let people know and you work at it!!! To think people spent hours and hours on it. And to all the dumbos who said delete...I bet you dont even read the series...This article is PERFECT!!!so if your going to critize it when you dont even read it......DONT READ IT common sense!!!-no offense- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.224.221 (talk • contribs)
  • PS- THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FANCRUFT!!! Fruit Salad, a girl who knows what she is doing...jerks71.252.224.221 04:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.252.224.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This article for it is very informational and can help Warriors readers better understand things, or give them something to do. Also links in the blue print to take them to another article, saving time. Also, might help get people into the series itself out of interest. And may show things Warriors readers might not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.99.72 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.37.99.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep!! This article is not any sort of fancraft. seriously, it's helpful info that can be used for further understanding of the warriors novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.134.43 (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.146.134.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• I'm a member of the Delete clan. 100% in-universe fancruft. Clarityfiend 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is awesome. We've worked really hard on it, and would hate to see it deleted and do it all over again. This article really helps all warrior fans and people who wants to get into warrios. DON NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE!!PLEEZ!Cloud Salad 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Cloud Salad — Cloud Salad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin See This ANI thread regarding admitted sockpuppetry by this user. One of the earlier IP !votes is also added by this user. Metros 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you delete this then you might as well delete the Harry Potter page. Just because the Warriors series is less popular doesn't mean you have to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.214.28 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely in-universe fancruft. east.718 at 09:06, 10/21/2007
• Delete Not just in-universe fancruft, also completely lacking any independent sources whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure fancruft. Hut 8.5 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How the holy crap is any of this fancruft? The allegiances are as they stand as of the books; all of the ceremonies have been used in the books; all the medicine cat herbs have been explained in the books (and more outright in Secrets of the Clans); the history of the Clans is in the books; the hierarchy is in the books; the mythology is in the books. Do you think the team of Warriors editors who do so much to keep the characters and other Warriors sections so free of speculation would let this whole article slip? All of us have read the books and we can all assure that, as far as Warriors is concerned, everything is fact. You may see it as useless and in-universe, but to a Warriors fan it makes perfect sense. Want to look up a ceremony for a fanfic? Check. Writing a list of medicine cat herbs? Check. Want to determine exactly how the hierarchy ladder goes? Check. Also to add, if this is deleted, where would we put it? Unless we keep this page, a whole mass of useFUL information will go to waste. Warriors fans who might need to look something up would be lost. Sincerely, Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lakestorm, all your comments here are exactly how this is "fancruft" as everyone else has termed it. Wikipedia is not a repository of information that fans can reference in order to write their fan fictions. It's information for everyone, everywhere. The highest policies of Wikipedia are based on sourcing from independent sources, not sources that are the book or the author. Just because they're explained in the book doesn't mean it's sourced by our standards. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no independent, reliable sources to show how this article's topic exists outside the fan world of the books. The comments by those !voting keep are proving the point that this article only really exists to provide information for fans to write their fan fictions. This kind of information is appropriate for a fan website, but not for Wikipedia. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provisionally. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I read some of the information referenced on this page regarding Wikipedia's standards, and I think I understand where you are coming from. If I understand correctly, you are saying that articles which merely describe the content of a book without any external connections aren't acceptable. So if there were sourced discussion of the social impact of the Warriors clans, for example, would that be acceptable? Because I think that with some work, information could be added describing how the concept of Warrior clans has become a social phenomenon that extends beyond the books. I don't know how much third party writing has been done on the subject, but it would help if you could provide the editors of this article time to research and provide that information, rather than automatically deleting it. I wrote an article which was published in an electronic children's literature journal back in March that may help in a small way, although much more research will be needed: http://www.theedgeoftheforest.com/archive/2007/apr/feature.shtml SheilaRuth 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has had a lot of time to be fixed. It's been up for a ear as it is so there's been plenty of time to clean it up. As for your source, it has little to no relevance to the topic at hand. Your source is just a summary of the books it seems. On top of that, you shouldn't be adding sources to articles that you yourself wrote. Metros 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was actually not adding my article as a source, since I'm not offering to edit the topic myself, just suggesting it as one possible article that someone could use in a small way. And while I wrote it, it was published by an independent third party. It's true that part of it is a summary of the books, but part of it discusses the social impact of the books, which if I understand falls under the definition of external, rather than internal. I've been an observer of this phenomenon for a couple of years, and have some expertise on it. As for the fact that it's been up for a year, I don't believe that the editors of this article have understood the problems with it sufficiently to fix them. I'm suggesting that with some guidance, they could do better. While I don't have the time to edit it myself, I'll be glad to offer the editors some guidance on bringing it into spec if you give them more time. SheilaRuth 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ya, you're seeing me as Spottedfire, but it's really Starsight. I sometimes try to keep Wikipedia content in line, and I know that many people work hard to keep this forum as true as possible. Like someone already said, if you delete this topic, you may as well delete every other fantasy book topic on Wikipedia. There's no point in keeping them if this one goes. And may I remind you that Warriors is nearly as popular as Harry Potter, if not as heard of. Spottedfire 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are the external sources for this though? It's great that you all say it's true and that you worked so hard on it, but aside from being a place for you all to use as a guideline to help you write fan fiction, where are the answers to the other issues being raised in this AFD about external sources? Metros 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book series. What else are we supposed to do? Aside from reviews--which don't add to this page--author chats, and tours, we don't have anything that we can use as reference.

If you delete this page, as Spottedfire said, you may as well delete every other book article on Wikipedia. Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems fairly obvious (not least from this http://wandsandworlds.com/community/node/1998) that this Wikipedia page is being used as an extension of fan sites. The Warriors series may be notable, but this list is not useful to anyone other than, possibly, a fan of the books. That’s almost the definition of fancruft. Also that fact that “many editors have worked hard on this article” above, has zero bearing on whether this article should be deleted. --S.dedalus 20:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since people are so passionate about this I highly recommend they start a warriors wiki. Rather then fight a losing battle her make something out of what you have.Ridernyc 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do very much believe that some people, Metros in particular, are not even trying to understand what this article is about, and are just assuming what it is based on what others said. (based on this edit). It is not just "about a group of cats." The groups of cats in the Warriors universe have complex societies, and this page is meant to explain those. I bring up Shinigami (Bleach) again. It has nothing but sources from the manga itself, and yet its status as an article isn't being contested. Why, though? It has the exact same purpose as this (My god, are you serious? That was put up for deletion too? Pilotbob, it is my personal opinion that you need to stop with this deletion rampage, and actually bother to read articles and understand their purpose.) The Clan (Warriors) page is meant to explain the society of a fictional universe. The Clan (Warriors) page is not just a reference guide for fanfics, and therefore fancruft, but is meant to be an informative article about the fictional universe and its key points. As for the person who said we did have time to fix it - That is rather preposterous, seeing as we were never told anything was wrong. ;-) --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add that, as per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is in fact an acceptable source for articles about that work of fiction. And I'll repeat once more that we have no lack of those. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "It is not just 'about a group of cats.' Oh really? From the first sentence of the article: "In the fictional series of Warriors, there are four groups of cats, called Clans". So yes, it is about groups of cats. It is not about medicines. Metros 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yeah it is. It's about diseases that affect those Clans, that the medicine cats (part of the Clans) have to help the Clans survive. I told you, we can expand it to include all the Warriors things, not just the Clans. >.> Lakestorm 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't belong in an article titled "Clans." This article is not to be about ALL things Warriors. It's to be about clans in the series. Metros 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll make a new article just for that. v.v Lakestorm 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that just because you have no real understanding about what an article is truly about, it needs to be automatically deleted. Just because it's from a book series doesn't mean it has to be totally fancruft. It may be fiction, but that doesn't mean it's all false, and fan work. It even says at the top of the page that is is a fictional series.

It does not just help people with fan fiction. If somebody is confused about something in the books, or even wants to start reading, they can come to this--or any of the Warriors pages--and get an answer.

Maybe you think it's pointless because it's fiction. Fine. You think that. I might add that, if you like Harry Potter, then you won't think the Harry Potter articles are pointless, just as Warriors fans don't think Warriors articles are pointless. Sincerely, Lakestorm 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would point all the users voting Keep to the following: WP:LOSE, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Most of the arguments being made in support seem to fall under one or more of these categories. GlassCobra 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment again I love seeing people who have passion and I love people who want to do something with all the energy they. However this is not the place. Thr proper place is http://www.wikia.com/ where you can start your own wiki and build the worlds largest warriors site. Just sorry wikipedia is not the place for this. Ridernyc 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually there is already a warriors wiki http://warriors.wikia.com/. All this information is already there and I'm sure the people posting in this debate already knew this. Ridernyc 04:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! No, I was not aware of it, and it does open for the possibility to move the article content over there, I suppose. However, I stick to my keep vote. For your assumption of what we already knew, I knew absolutely nothing about the Warriors, the Clan or any Warrior Wikis. I had never heard of them before, and I have seen nothing that would tempt me to read any of the books. It is a category of literature I do not like at all. However, I do respect that other people may like it.

By the way, I realise that this page is now protected so only Wikipedia authors can edit it. Wikipedia readers have no say. I am not sure I consider that fair in this kind of discussion. Mlewan 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair because this AFD is being spammed on forums by users in order to garner more support by people. This is wholly inappropriate and creates an unfair AFD. Metros 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not perceived that there was a flood of spam here. If people are informed that they can participate and they have an interest, they should be allowed to do so. There is nothing unfair about coming with new arguments. As we all know, this is not a vote. The semi-protection prevents people from coming with arguments, which could sway the debate. However, if all of them just say "keep my page!" or "kick that page out!", the decision taker is clearly free to ignore all of them. Mlewan 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, it's not your place to insult me and get mad at me for asking for help, and I refuse to regret what I have done. It's not spam, as you say it is. We want to save the page. And at the time I ddidn't realize it wasn't a majority vote. Move on with your life and stop mooning over it. What does it matter to you--and to all the others who says "Delete"--if it is deleted? Don't come look at it. The Warriors fans want it. You don't. You don't read Warriors. What does it matter to you if it is deleted if you don't even need it?

By the way, I'm not afraid of standing up to an administrator. Ban me if you will, just stop talking about that post. That's all I care about right now--that and keeping the page.

Also, I don't give a care what you think of me. I just want you to stop bringing up that post. Lakestorm 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Wikipedia is about things, based to real sources, not on fictiojnal sources. Mukadderat 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I've been here for several years and never seen us make that distinction. As it happens, there's a quote that seems quite insightful: "Verifiability and reliability is about having your information sourced to accurate publications, there is no source in existence more accurate than the original work for information about the fiction it contains. As regards in universe information, the use of third party sources is not only nonsensical but harmful, as it will lead to the inclusion of information sourced to things like inaccurate third-party reviews." --Kizor 02:16, 25 October 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. Sandahl 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Student Association

Latin American Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. High school clubs would generally seem to be non-notable. Previously tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#A7 but now attempts to establish notability, so probably needs an AFD. Hawaiian717 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not really even possibly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable. Dylan 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High school clubs without references, no 3rd party coverage or relevant Ghits to the same. SkierRMH 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... although I -will- miss having the information about the ice cream social and Valentine's dance on Wikipedia ;) Mindraker 00:17, 24 October 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 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian American actors

List of Italian American actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To start off, "Italian American actors are notable, therefore we should keep this list" is too simplistic a rationale, especially when considering the bigger picture. Italian Americans as actors can be notable, for many different reasons, ranging from the fact that a huge staple of American culture is the so-called "mafia movie" and frequently (though not always) Italian Americans are cast in those roles to the fact that Italian-Americans are often seen as "sex symbols" in American media. However, lists such as this destroy the notion of why it is notable to be an Italian American actor, because it lumps together EVERYONE who could peripherally be considered "Italian American" and an actor. 90% of the people on this list are in no way notable because they are Italian American actors. Perhaps James Gandolfini of The Sopranos fame could be considered an Italian American actor but why should Dan Castellaneta who voices Homer Simpson. For anyone who is worthy of being considered an Italian American actor there exists the Culture section of Italian Americans. In fact, Italian American Culture would make a good article too. However, lists like this end up being "non-notable cross-categorizations" for over half of their entries. Bulldog123 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an obviously notable cross-categorization (where, say, Italian-American civil engineers would not be). Actors' ethnicity often plays into the roles they get and they are often called out for representing the community properly or improperly. Referenced and somewhat categorized (although decades are a fairly sloppy approach, most careers span more than one), so meets WP:LIST. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is so obvious, why not mention what makes it so notable for all listees? Do they all play Italian characters? Is there a specific Italian-American brand of acting? I honestly want to know what makes it so unflinchingly notable. Bulldog123 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Artists of all sorts are the people for whom these categories make the most sense. And Bulldog is looking for a List of Actors who Play Italian-American roles, but that would be a separate list. Might be a good idea, too. DGG (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually not looking for List of actors who play Italian-American roles, which would be a performer by performance listing, and is generally avoided (and deleted as categories). I'm looking for any legitimate relationship between having parents or grandparents who were born in Italy and being an American actor. I see none except what I mentioned, and that applies to no more than 25% of listees. Bulldog123 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This categorization is notable enough for there to be a Guild of Italian American Actors which publishes an Italian American Players Directory. Problems with people adding non-notable people or "he's 1/16th Italian and he was an extra in a film" can be addressed by editing, rather than deleting the whole list. DHowell 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but my example still holds. Dan Castellaneta supposedly isn't 1/16th Italian, and so why is his Italian Americanness related to his acting? Bulldog123 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable categorization, and editor proposing deletion is well known for his/her profusion of WP:POINT nominations without merit. Badagnani 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This coming from someone who suggested banning an admin for closing an AfD to the opposite of his liking. Bulldog123 01:03, 24 October 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 - Nomination Withdrawn. Icestorm815 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbage

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

No notability asserted. Miremare 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite looking decidedly unpromising, I found a Game Tunnel review, GameSpot list PC Zone UK as having reviewed it (!?!) and there's a GamaSutra article about the game, it's in the Independent Game Festival 2007. There's 3 things here - 1) the game itself, 2) the website and 3) the developer's lack of experience in developing games and the broader discussion about indie developers. There's various other sources kicking about which may or may not be usable/up to this standard, but I'm pretty sure there's enough for the article about the game (with the level information chopped, blegh).Someone another 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the massive laundry list of pop-culture references. Someone another 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, possible notability... However, ign's claim may be wrong, as a search on the official PC Zone site [3] yields no results. Unfortunately, no one on the Magazine project has that issue, so we're a bit stuck with that. Gamasutra is certainly reliable, but I'm not sure about gametunnel.com, as it seems to be a site that specifically covers independent games. Whether that's an issue or not I'm not sure, but it seems that any "popular" independent game is going to be featured there whether or not it's covered by the mainstream gaming press. What do you reckon on that? Miremare 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Zone review is also listed at GameRankings, with a score of 71%. The game author writes for the magazine sometimes so the review was probably placed as a favour (though it wasn't given a silly score of 98% or whatever, so I count that as perfectly OK for reliability). Game Tunnel does just review indie games, but I'm quite happy that their reviews are reliable and that a review from them provides some notability. It is an actual review rather than a selling piece, and GT does have reviewing standards overseen by the webmaster. If nothing else the PC Zone score can be cited to gamerankings and the GT review can also be used to write about the game's reception, and the development section can be written with gama sutra and self-references.Someone another 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending investigation into the magazine issue. Unavailability of a certain source to Wikipedia editors at a certain time does not tell us anything about notability. The other sources look good. User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dan Marshall did a series of development diaries for PC Zone. Gamasutra interview him about his entrance into the 2007 IGF competition, but the game wasn't shortlisted for any awards.[4] - hahnchen 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Concur with previous comments about magazine and gaming media-in-general coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:09 24 October 2007 (GMT)
• Weak keep. It's at least somewhat notable as per above (direct reference to the PC Zone UK issue would be nice though), and after shortening the introduction and adding a section about its development (the fact it was created by only one person seems to be the most notable feature), I can see an adequate encyclopedic article. --Allefant 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn sorry, this escaped my watchlist somehow. Anyway, PC Zone seems to have featured it on more than one occasion, and there's the other web sources, which Someone another says are likely reliable, so away with this AfD. It would still be nice to see the PC Zone coverage referenced in the article though if anyone can do this. Miremare 18:39, 24 October 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 Strait Regional School Board. --Coredesat 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Breton Highlands Education Centre/Academy

Cape Breton Highlands Education Centre/Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Schools don't ever seem to be deleted under WP:CSD. So here we are. This article has no assertion of notability whatsoever, other than the fact that it is there. No reason to keep. Rjd0060 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing but OR. NN School Toddstreat1 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to parent article at Strait Regional School Board per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect There are alternatives to both CSD and AfD for articles like this: a redirect can be done as an editing decision, DGG (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unistructure

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

Delete unsourced article about an aparently nn academic building at Bryant U. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a simple google search found this. I'm sure there is more out there. SolidPlaid 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as per SolidPlaid. --S.dedalus 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's only mentioned in passing in most hits on Google News Archive, almost all of them from the Providence Journal or a campus (non-independent) source. It seems worth mentioning in the college article, but most campuses have a multi-use facility of one kind or another. The main thing that made this one unique was that the college had just moved and briefly housed the entire institution. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of particular importance on Wikipedia or even to Bryant specifically. Dylan 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It seems to be the main structure at the university, and would make a good part of the main article. Using this as the title is a little confusing.DGG (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and largely copyvio of http://web.bryant.edu/virtualtour/Unistructure.htm. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 06:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Main contributor blanked page. Mindraker 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as a copyvio article on a non notable building. Nuttah68 15:11, 25 October 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disneymania 6

Disneymania 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Future album complation that may or may not be a hoax. Be sure to check the history, there's been a lot of stuff added and removed. Strictly procedural for me. UsaSatsui 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Also check the discussion page. The only information about this album is fan sites so far. It looks like a fan created extrapolation of Disney's past history of releasing these compilations. --NrDg 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Recreation of salted DisneyMania 6 with different spelling. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisneyMania 6 --NrDg 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Crystal - only blogs & fan sites so far; could find nothing relevant on the Disney site to prove that its in production at this time. Welcome it back when its officially announced by 'the Mouse'. SkierRMH 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. That cover image should probably be checked for validity as well. - eo 01:07, 24 October 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suite Village

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

Delete another unsourced article about nn dorms at Bryant U. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no assertion of notability that I can see. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Italian Pie

The Original Italian Pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a restaurant chain with 20+ franchises and zero third-party sources. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. Not great, but could be notable [5] [6] --S.dedalus 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. I think Wikipedia already has a lot of other articles about small regional restaurant chains like this. When I run across articles for individual restaurants that have no other particular claim of notability (tourist attraction in their own right, etc) I've been prod'ing them, but a franchise with 20+ locations might be big enough to be notable as a business. What we really need is a formal policy on what constitutes notability for restaurants and restaurant chains. Dr.frog 02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No cogent rationale has been presented why to delete this article. The above argument is persuasive. --Zeamays 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Dr Frog, and in the absence of such a policy, I personally think that 20 franchises is more than notable enough. THE KING 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep.. There are 50+ articles per google news archives, some of which appear to be significant coverage. These are pay sites so I don't feel like checking them out though. The article needs clean-up and sourcing. Wikidemo 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Needs way more info and sources. What makes this restaurant 'special'? If it's a keep, it's a very weak keep. Mindraker 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Mindraker comment: I created this article just recently, and then some folks immediately wanted to delete it, despite the fact I marked it as a "stub". Since it is a stub, people like Mindraker should be adding to it and improving it, not immediately wanting to delte it. Their passion to delete it immediately suggests some kind of axe is being ground. If not, my apologies. --Zeamays 14:36, 25 October 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. --Coredesat 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cochise County Cavaliers

Cochise County Cavaliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor league football team with no WP:RSes showing notability. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, semi-pro league is not notable. Corvus cornix 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the league they play in doesn't have an article, it is stretching it for one of the teams in that league to be notable enough. - fchd 12:36, 21 October 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Chariandy

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

Delete no reliable sources for this BLP article of a nn author and professor, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and his book was on some runner up lists for some prizes but won nothing apparently, not even the lower level ones. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. For one thing, the winners haven't even been announced yet for either award that he's up for. And for two, neither of them are "lower level" awards — they're the two big megaprizes in Canadian literature, such that any writer who makes their shortlist is inherently notable enough for an article. Keep. Bearcat 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd not ordinarily support this for the author of a first novel, but the awards are certainly notable. 3 of the other 4 nominees for the GG are very well established writers indeed, so he is right up there at the top. Perhaps the articles on the prizes can be written to be a little more explanatory about the distinction.DGG (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article Governor General's Award already does. But for an award that's been presented annually since 1936, we obviously have to split each year's nominees/winners list out to a separate article rather than listing them all in one giant omnibus article. Bearcat 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- you've got to be kidding; a first-time author who gets nominated for the biggest prizes in all of Canadian letters is certainly worthy of note! Besides this, Chariandy is one of the founding editors of Commodore Books, Western Canada's first black-owned, black-run literary press. He is far from being a no-name author; his book launch was covered for television, he is the first author from Arsenal Pulp Press -- Vancouver's main independent publisher -- in years to be included in the Vancouver International Writer's Festival, he is the first Arsenal Pulp to be nominated for the Giller Prize and first to be nominated for the Governor General's award. As a first time author is he nominated for the GG alongside Barbara Gowdy and Michael Ondaatje! I'm willing to bet that the person who nominated this entry for deletion has some personal beef or jealousy issue here; given the outrageous number of self-promoting, useless and plumped-up Wikipedia entries for low-level accomplishers, it seems highly suspect that Chariandy's well-deserved entry gets challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.171.160 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable stub. THE KING 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. J 22:12, 23 October 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--JForget 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mairi Duncan

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

YouTube superstar with no chance at enduring notability. Cap'n Walker 21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Despite normally not being notable, there are two reliable sources, thus keep. Tiddly-Tom 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Corvus cornix. Tiddly-Tom 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the article: "...became famous for falling down a floor hatch" pretty much says it all right there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if WP:BLP1E means anything at all, it's for situations like this one. "In the future, everyone will be famous for 13 seconds." --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination. Speaking of BLP1E, one of the references leads you to an article called "Celebrities who fall for five minutes of fame". Yamaguchi先生 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the link to Celebrities who fall for five minutes of fame tells it all; BLP1E says it pretty well. SkierRMH 18:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as last time, and for the exact same reaosns which I quote: "As illustrated [..] this article was poorly sourced and solely comprised of negative sourced information on an entity who's notability is disputed within WP:BIO. The subject of the article is only known for a number of posts he made on Usenet groups, which does not make him inherently notable. Most of the references made on the article are to a college newspaper, which cannot be taken as a reliable and unbiased source of information. The book authored by Eric Francis is one source that cannot be ignored, but there are still no multiple, reliable and independent sources available (Discover magazine makes a transitory note on the subject). There are gross violations of WP:BLP on this article and as the largest source of information on the internet we have a lot of responsibilities towards the society and it's members. The article has done nothing but made a mockery of the person. Wikipedia, as it has been circumstantiated in the past, has the capability of adversely and antagonistically affecting lives of individuals. We do not, and should not harm. That is what BLP means. Moreover, it seems from the logs of the page, that the subject of the article does not wish this article to exist either."

The only modification is that some of his supporters now want it to exist as a hagiography. That doesn't cut it either. I am restoring the redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium

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

This article has a long and convoluted history of which I'm mostly ignorant. It was deleted a few months ago because of BLP and notability concerns; the BLP concerns seem to have been addressed (imo) but I don't think the subject is actually notable. The only reliable sources are Discover magazine (apparently a pretty brief mention; I haven't read the article), the Boston Globe (as brief a mention as it's possible to have), and a true crime book. The latter two are unrelated to what Plutonium is internet-famous for, and being questioned by the police generally doesn't make you notable (which is why Wikipedia doesn't have articles for the other two people mentioned in the Boston Globe article). The only real justification for Wikipedia's notability policy is that lets Wikipedia's editors focus their attention on topics that are actually important. I don't think this subject is worth the thousands of hours Wikipedians have invested in it. P4k 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm short-changing the Boston Globe mention a little bit above I guess, but it's still pretty short.P4k 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET.P4k 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Boston Globe mention--- it notes that Plutonium was called in because of his usenet presence. To anyone who was on usenet, omitting Plutonium is head-scratchingly bizzare.Likebox 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and sourced. Colonel Warden 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and sourced. Rewrite math section if necessary.Likebox 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've been through this so many times. The mathematics that's now in the article is complete nonsense and badly written nonsense at that. We can argue back and forth ad-infinitum about WP:BLP, but I also propose we can be sensible: This individual has achieved nothing of any scientific value, much less of notable scientific value. Plutonium's not really notable as a scientific crank; his notability if any, is as that of an individual who has become an easy target of ridicule and abuse, and unlike Emperor Norton, he's alive. Couldn't we just leave this guy alone (as has wisely been with other noteworthy living individuals)? --CSTAR 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I remember the previous debate about this article, which I had thought was neatly addressed by giving him just the brief entry in Notable Usenet personalities, to which Archimedes Plutonium was a redirect. There's no way we can give him a full article without imposing the standards we would apply to any other full article, i.e., reliable sourcing. Some people find his pronouncements interesting, but no reliable sources have found them interesting, so far as we can tell. He seems never to have attempted the route of conventional publication, which is the way other scholars have got the reputations that justify an article in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I was in favor of keeping the article during the last two AFDs because I think that AP is one of the most notable Usenet personalities to emerge. The fact that his crankish writings do not approach coherence, much less plausibility, really isn't relevant: he's notable as a crank, not a theorist. Nonetheless, the last AfD passed and I don't like the recreation of a previously deleted article unless there is some clear change in the situation. Clearly, AP is not more notable now than then. Also, as I see it, the argument then was that it is almost impossible to satisfy BLP when writing about a crank and that certainly hasn't changed. Thus, while opposed to the original deletion, I also oppose this resurrection. Phiwum 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we manage to cover other cranks while satisfying BLP- it's often hard work but we have managed it with certain 'nutritionists', NLP gurus etc so articles get there in the end and it's really not grounds for deletion, or all articles discussing the various fruitloops and their theories would have to go.Merkinsmum 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Can you point to an article that we currently have on a notable eccentric or crank that has no reliable sources commenting on the theory? EdJohnston 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what is being discussed by the above and I, he said its impossible to writte about a crank and satisfy BLP. I was saying it is not, I hesitate to name one here unless it is considered a violation. oh ok then not that I'm calling her a crank but some people question the theories of Gillian McKeith Tony Robbins and others. Sources was not what I meant I was more responding to Phiwum's comment, and saying that we do it successfully in other articles. As to sources, I think someone said above that he's been mentioned in several printed ones, I'm not that knowledgeable about this person though which is why I'm just commenting because I have experience on other articles on people with erm, interesting theories, and it is possible too make them into Good Articles, even.Merkinsmum 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keep his entry in Notable Usenet personalities, which was the result of the 3rd AfD. — Loadmaster 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, rewrite if necessary. There are sources. It should be possible to improve this page. --S.dedalus 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, sourced, and clinically insane. JJL 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Can people who are saying "notable and sourced" please explain why, address my original comments as to why I think this isn't true, etc.?P4k 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [7] How on earth is over 26,000 Google hits not notable? --S.dedalus 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources, not google hits.P4k 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself that there are several articles in books and magazines. Google hits is then a perfectly valid and often used gage of notability. Furthermore it is unreasonable to demand huge numbers of external sources for a person who is primarily notable for internet work. This person is looks plenty notable to me. --S.dedalus 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I explain up top why I don't think those sources are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. There's no reason to hold internet people to a different standard than anyone else.P4k 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And google hits are often used but far from valid.P4k 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right? This is the FOURTH nomination for deletion? The article is fine. The sources are no worse than any average Wikipedia article. On consideration, I have changed my vote to “strong keep.” --S.dedalus 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP does not have 26,000 hits on Google; it's more like 430 (follow the "hits" chain to the last link). In comparison, my real name gets about 220 Google hits, and I'm certainly not famous. So, yeah, Google hit counts are fairly irrelevant. — Loadmaster 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep planty of hits on google. Also found it interesting that I can find conversation of people conspiring to get this article off of wikipedia. Ridernyc 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apparently Mr. Archimedes is also notable for inventing the term search engine bombing in 1997. --S.dedalus 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A few sentences at Notable Usenet personalities will cover what is useful in the few reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research into the meaning of unpublished/non-peer-reviewed mathematical ideas. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not really the point though. This person is probably the most notable Usenet personality. His idea’s are eccentric, and the mathematics may not be necessary in the article. However the PERSON is clearly notable. --S.dedalus 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The available reliable, published information sources about this "notable person" do not justify an article. The small number of points Wikipedia needs to make can easily be made at Notable Usenet personalities. The Wikipedia community has experimented with allowing a page for "Archimedes Plutonium" and we have learned that it becomes a target for unwelcome original research and a waste of time for community members. When a full-length biography of "Archimedes Plutonium" is published by a reputable publisher, we can reconsider, but for now, deletion of the "Archimedes Plutonium" page is the best path. Editors who want to continue an original research project on "Archimedes Plutonium" can do so at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by that last sentence about Wikiversity you mean creating a biographical research entry on AP, that's probably appropriate, but if you mean that AP's theories can be presented as research, it's not (because his Usenet musings are obviously no such thing). — Loadmaster 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "an original research project on Archimedes Plutonium" as being the reading of works attributed to "Archimedes Plutonium" and trying to determine what they mean and what their significance might be. In my view, results from this type of original research are currently being reported on Wikipedia where it is not welcome. I've never read any of the work attributed "Archimedes Plutonium", so I have no basis upon which to characterize it as "research" or anything else. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of his recent musings on sci.math, which are what he calls his "published books", in case you're interested in his "research" writings: #104 Real numbers, #115 Riemann Hypothesis, #121 Poincare Conjecture, #161 Largest prime.

• Keep if the evidence for "Google bombing" is strong enough--that alone is sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently there's no evidence for it, so.P4k 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. . . excuse me. Did you look at the link I provided? There IS a source in the Google bomb article. You seem quit eager for this article to be deleted. --S.dedalus 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't look, my bad.P4k 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is this web page I found with a GIS which supports it: kibom.com, as well as the article on WikiVisual. If AP did indeed coin the term, that small fact can be added to the entry at Notable Usenet personalities. — Loadmaster 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is notable and cited. It could use some rewriting, though. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless AP himself and his sycophants are banned from Wikipedia, and the "theories" section is killed. This nonsense gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 22 October 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 Procedural close until the arb com is done with their work this is premature. The claimed violation of WP:POINT has not been sustained by the committee as no result has come out of the process. For current status, see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Perhaps when the arb com is finished we can line up all the allegations of apartheid together and delete them all, but now is not that time. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid

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

The recreation of this article was a WP:POINT violation (See [8] for evidence) and it remains a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SYNTH. It served as the mother for a series of WP:POINT articles such as Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of French apartheid etc which have since been deleted or renamed.

This article is a synthesis and OR because it brings together topics that no other author or source have brought together in order to create an argument. The title "allegations of apartheid" is highly misleading since, in most cases, not even the sources cited allege that actual apartheid is being practised by the countries named. Rather, in a number of instances, the term apartheid is used as an analogy or rhetorical flourish rather than as an actual allegation. For instance there is no actual allegation that "water apartheid" is a form of the crime of apartheid or is a form of legalized racial segregation. If it's necessary to have a page that lists all the article in which the term "apartheid" is used then a disambiguation page should be created as suggested by User:Kbolino in his edit comment here [9] but spinning an article out of a series of unconnected instances in which a term is employed is pure WP:SYNTH bordering on original research. I and a few others have attempted to rewrite the article to make it acceptable, it was previously little more than a laundry list of unconnected allegations, but the fundamental problems with the article remain so it should be deleted. Lothar of the Hill People 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as mover. Lothar of the Hill People 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as violating the prime directive. Bearian 21:00, 19 October 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 wasNo consensus though merge with History of Doctor Who is a logical conclusion to this afd(article size aside), as is the tranwiki to TARDIS. These alternatives need further discussion on the article talk page as a combination of both is probably the ideal. I also note that information in this article doesnt date match information already in the History of Doctor Who Gnangarra 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who logo

Doctor Who logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and an article on the logo of one tv series is not encyclopedic. PROD failed. OZOO (What?) 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, as the page shows information on the logo's changes through time, and due to the fact that a logo section does not fit on the main Doctor who page, it is required...Mrmccollough 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If the Doctor Who page was not so large, this would belong their, but because of its size, I believe it should be kept here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Although, it would be somewhat better with some pictures :P Tiddly-Tom 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help in this matter, i appreciate it anyone else? Mrmccollough 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm probably Doctor Who's biggest American fan, but I'm going to have to favor delete and merge with History of Doctor Who. I don't think enough information exists to make this worthy of an article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i could find someone with permission to place images on this article, i think tahat would make it worthy, no? Mrmccollough 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images don't necessarily make it worthy. I think placing it within History of Doctor Who would be the best solution. But we'll see what kind of consensus emerges.

Oh, and if this page survives the AfD, I'm going to be a huge contributor.  :-)=David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - History of Doctor Who is already quite large. I think it warrants its own article to prevent others becoming to large. Tiddly-Tom 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly seconded! Mrmccollough 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC

Oh and to =David, if this page does indeed survive this process a huge contribution would be more than welcome! Mrmccollough 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: with History of Doctor WhoToddstreat1 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you merge an article about a logo and a program? though they are focused on the same program they are totally different articles! Mrmccollough 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The history of the logo is the history of the program; each one reflects the era's sensibilities, tastes, feels, likes, etc. Therefore, the articles can and should be the same. In my opinion. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however this article deals with the design and look of the logo itself, whereas the history article is clearly an article for things that happened in the show. The design of the logo shoul surely be kept separate. Mrmccollough 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(About 3ecs!) It is an article about the history of the program, and this article is about the history of the logo of a program :P They could be merged, but I think the current History Page is long enough to mean that this article should be kept here Tiddly-Tom 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the history of doctor who editing page: This page is 66 kilobytes long.! Surely that lenth warrents leaving this as a separate artical, with a link on the history page Mrmccollough 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable. Since when have we started having articles discussing TV show logos? Add the link to the site with the logos [10] to the main article. If anyone wants to see the logos they can go to that site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazysuit (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - the subject does not warrant an article of its own. The history of the logo is not particularily notable - logos, titles, and such for programmes are commonly redone or refreshed throughout the run of the series. The fact that the DW logo has so many versions is a testament to the long run, not to the logo's design. Furthermore, unless someone can provide reference sources, there is no way to flesh out the article beyond the simple "this is the logo at year x" format. There's already a bunch of text that has to go due to being non-encyclopedic. (I actually tried to clean it up earlier, but my browser crashed. I'll try another pass later on.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a huge doctor who fan but this needs to go. I think we have found one of the limits of inheriting notability. I've said it before and I'll say it again just because it won't fit in the main article is not a reason to create a new page. You have to ask yourself if the information should just be removed. This is one of those cases. Ridernyc 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to add that DR. Who is the perfect subject to have it's own wiki. If no one has started one I highly recommend it would support this all being transwiki'd to it. Ridernyc 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• TARDIS, the Doctor Who wiki from Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'm going to be spending sometime there. Also change my vote to transwiki since I checked and it seems this info is not on there. Ridernyc 07:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - BBC Two 1991-2001 idents has it's own article... Should that go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiddly Tom (talk • contribs) 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have recently added the dates each logo was used, this is added to the information on the page to fill it out...Mrmccollough 10:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add a more detailed description of each logo...Mrmccollough 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Further information on colour and shape has been added to each logo's description in order to lenthen the article...Mrmccollough 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent notability. If the filler (much of which is repetitious and added recently in an attempt to save the article - see above comment by Mrmccullough) were removed from this page it would easily compress to a single paragraph or a table in the main article. Cosmo0 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More links to other pages, and a description of the article has now been added... Thankyou cosmo0 for your help in editing...Mrmccollough 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) THE HISORY OF DOCTOR WHO PAGE PAGE IS 66kb LONG!!! Surely this constitutes separtating the logo history into a separate article???Mrmccollough 13:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into History of Doctor Who Will ^(talk) 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does nobody listen... The history of doctor who is to long to merge!Mrmccollough 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. it's only 66Kb long, and this article could easily be reduced and merged without losing that much info. --OZOO (What?) 18:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66 Kilobytes has to belong enough to warrent splitting this to its own article surely!!!Mrmccollough 15:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't free up space, and there is no definitive guide to article size. If HoDW IS too large than we could (theoretically) Merge into Doctor Who theme music and move the combined article to Doctor Who opening sequence or something else. --OZOO (What?) 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not bad thinking actually...Mrmccollough 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'm sorry, guys, I gave this article a steroid shot worth of cleanup, but it won't survive on its own unless you bring some good data into it. I know, the main Doctor Who page is large, but this page will probably be deleted otherwise. Mindraker 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge: The article's 84kb as it is, strewing the logo in will just make it larger while adding little in terms of quality. Either keep if it's sufficient for its own article or delete it. Wizardman 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not really notable - the credit sequence alone is not normally notable for any other show is it? Besides the article is somewhat pointless because it describes in text what pictures look like (wihtout providing the pictures). Given that nobody not already familiar with Dr Who logos would be able to envisage what said logo looked like just from this article's descriptions and also given that anyone already familiar with what they look like doesn't need to read the article - who, exactly, is it for? Fancruft. A1octopus 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of Doctor Who. Severely reduce the content as it is too much original research. The content of this article is not attributed to suitable sources. “The Doctor who logo collection” link is to a fan site, which not to a sufficiently reputable source. The target (History of Doctor Who) is rather large, but that is just too bad. Content that is independently notable can be split off. The logo stuff is not sufficiently notable on its own. --SmokeyJoe 12:04, 26 October 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. --Coredesat 05:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrosura

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

Non-notable collegiate dance group. --Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. None of the references are independent reliable sources. Blog doesn't count. Duke web page etc does not count - a mention on a Uni clubs page seems fine.Obina 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not wiki notable - looks like just a vanity page. Springnuts 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References are not independent as they are university related/sponsored. Otherwise no 3rd party coverage to prove notability. SkierRMH 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could use some 3rd party sources, and tone down the peacock terms. Mindraker 17:25, 23 October 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Bruno

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

Is a DJ of questionable notability. I can find no google news hits for him (although many google news hits for other people of the same name) and a few mentions on websites such as an entry at thedjlist.com but that's it. JoshuaZ 23:54, 14 October 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 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreferenced and very little in the way of notability established in the article. Delete unless well sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No evidence of notability; indeed no real claim to notability. Springnuts 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one relevant Ghit (quite a few persons with this name) and the mention cited by the nom, notability not established. SkierRMH 18:14, 20 October 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola W370

Motorola W370 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Reads like an advert; just a list of specs and no substantial sources. Mikeblas 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NN object. Most of the other cell phone articles are NN and should be removed too, but they are written a lot better than this one. - Rjd0060 21:39, 14 October 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 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This can be better covered on Phonescoop. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No wiki notability established. Springnuts 21:15, 19 October 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Fishkin

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

I've received a credible request for courtesy deletion from the subject of this biography. Per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination), please delete (first choice) or (second choice) merge/redirect into search engine optimization. Mr. Fishkin's page is a stub and he's probably less notable than either Mr. Finkelstein or Mr. Brandt. I doubt very much that any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would devote an article to him, and although this is sourced, it's basically only five lines of material. That's unlikely to ever grow into a featured article and the person whose most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it. Let's give him some peace. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I started the article and I confirm that the subject requested deletion. He's borderline notable. It's not going to hurt us to let go of this article. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; eh. Could be considered WP:BLP1E material, really; borderline notability, and as we've seen before, why spend the time fighting over stuff like this? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NN, overstated references.Toddstreat1 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - courtesy costs nothing. Springnuts 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, optionally merge professional material into an article on SEOmoz instead. Very marginal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unanimous opinions. Could we get a WP:SNOW here? Even the subject of the bio wants this gone. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 20 October 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 as copyright infringement. Sam Blacketer 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie Harris Puremovement

Rennie Harris Puremovement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article that reads like an advert. Fails WP:N. Cap'n Walker 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Despite being successful, does not mean that it is encyclopedic. Tiddly-Tom 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Article may need work, but he's a notable performance artist and educator. Plenty of WP:Seliable Sources are available from news sources. A quick Gsearch[11] turned up two pages of news hits including the LA Times. Toddstreat1 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a verbatim copyvio. So tagged - I've not actually deleted-and-closed this just in case someone feels the urge to do a rewrite. — iridescent 21:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Good catch. Toddstreat1 22:17, 19 October 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. --Coredesat 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet!

Dammit, Janet! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Song is still non-notable, and no amount of rewriting the article will fix that. That's why the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep and fix". Kww 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. Kww 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is a very well known song in a very popular movie. It has been covered several times, including notably as the title of a Family Guy episode. The article seems to be well written. Kevin 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known song indeed from an extremely popular film, dozens of reliable source notes. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The multiple citations provides objective evidence of notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First article was a mere stub, and the delete decision understandable. The new article however seems to me to establish sufficient notability - indeed strongly so. Springnuts 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently different, sufficiently sourced, seems to passWP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A nicer article than the one Betty Monroe had. Keep. DS 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, with reservations I'm gonna tag one part of the area as a Wikipedia:Trivia violation. Pop culture references shouldn't be listing every single instance of the song title or influences. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Delete No attempt made to help cleanup article, or verify facts in article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article as is shows notability I would think. Yamaguchi先生 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know WP:Fiction is not exactly the correct policy to cover this but I think we could safely say that the songs of from Rocky Horror clearly inherit notability from the parent article. Ridernyc 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is it non-notable? It has 38 references from secondary sources...which, by the way, is 8 more than God. Smashville 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Answer How many of those 38 were about the song, and how many were about the movie? Of those that were about the song, how many were really about the song, and how many were used just because the reporter wanted to make a joke about his subject being named "Janet"? Kww 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dammit, Janet! was never a movie. The statement "how many were really about the song" expects others to supply the reasoned analysis to support such a statement. The other statements are not the result of labor in reviewing the reliable source material. Rather, they are merely guesses on your part - personal opinions, unsupported by reasoned analysis with no bases in Wikipedia article standards. Articles are not deleted based on unsupported, personal opinions. -- Jreferee t/c 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, apparently they're only kept on the basis of unsupported personal opinions. Otto4711 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Total rewrite since last AfD, asserts notability very well now. Plenty of valid sources, no reason to delete. -- Sander Säde 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smashville Will ^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while there are some parts of the trivia section that could be removed, it meets most of the criteria of Songs notablity. SkierRMH 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not that it will make the slightest bit of difference in the face of this gaggle of ill-informed, some might say knee-jerk, keep !votes, but the song is simply not notable. Yes, the title of the song has been mentioned in a number of articles that are about the film or the stage show. This does not satisfy WP:N's requirement of "significant coverage" about the song itself. It does not meet any of the suggested guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC#Songs. The notability of the musical or the film is not inherited by every song from the musical. Absent a reliable source that each and every one of the mentions of the two words that comprise the title were in fact inspired by the title, that entire section is original research based on the assumption that every occurrence of the two words together must by definition be an allusion to the song. Otto4711 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your use of the term "notability" doesn't seem to be based on any Wikipedia article standards. In regards to importance of the song, why should any Wikipedian's personal opinion about the song supersede the decision of numerous reliable sources to include information about the song in their publication? All these reliable sources make business decisions on what to include and what to exclude in their publication. If they include information about a topic, they are saying that topic is important enough for that reliable source to spend money on it and include information about it in their publication. And if the reliable sources think the topic is important enough to include in their publications, that is good enough for Wikipedia to include in its publication. Wikipedia article standards reflect that. -- Jreferee t/c

• I use the word "notability" to mean "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which could not be any more solidly based in Wikipedia article standards because it is the standard. I am struggling mightily to assume good faith here, but I do not understand how anyone can legitimately claim that a source that merely mentions the title of the song can possibly be considered a reliable source that attests to the notability of the song itself. The mere mention of a song title in an article that is not about the song is not "significant coverage" of the song. Citing a handful of articles that include the words "Dammit Janet" in them and claiming (absent any reliable sourcing that the use of the two words are even a RHPS reference at all) that they establish the notability of the song is like citing this article as evidence of the notability of the Time Warp. As has been stated below, find me a reliable source that is significant in its coverage of the song and not just including the two words of the title and great, there's evidence of notability. Find me a bunch of passing mentions of the song title and, no, sorry, not notable. Otto4711 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per otto, and having a glut of references that prove mentions rather than notability does not help matters out at all, like "this headline say Damnit Janet" or such. Can probably be redirected. Dannycali 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep that Ott04711 would say "delete" and in his rationale link to a guideline that says "Most songs... should redirect to another relevant article" is just more evidence of the practically pathological need some people feel to delete stuff in the face of all reason. If nothing else, this should be a redirect, not deleted. Even the stuff he links to in his deletion arguments says that deletion isn't called for, it's just bizarre. --W.marsh 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, redirect it, the point still stands that the song is in no way independently notable and should under no circumstances have an independent article. Otto4711 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I noticed that this article had been resurrected despite the original "delete" consensus, my first step was to establish a redirect to the quite notable parent article, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. That redirect was undone, which is why I renominated it for AFD. Otto4711's arguments are actually quite sound. This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.Kww 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One AFD isn't perpetually binding... people wanting to improve an article that once had problems is a good thing, not a procedural violation as you suggest in the nomination. --W.marsh 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is a procedural problem. If there was evidence of notability, the first vote should have been to keep and improve. There was no change in the notability between the original deletion and the recreation.Kww 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus can change... there's just no policy saying that one AFD means an article can never be recreated. This AFD is showing a consensus for keeping so far, so you're being very selective (and biased), just looking for out-of-date AFDs that show a result you agree with. --W.marsh 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus apparently can change when it's in the direction that you agree with. Has "consensus" really "changed" so much in the 16 days since the last AFD closed? Seems doubtful. And, really, an AFD from two weeks ago is "out of date? Really? Otto4711 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFd is out of date because the current article has been totally rewritten from the one that AFD discussed, and consensus seems to have changed because of the large number of people arguing "keep" in this discussion. --W.marsh 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, put yourself in the closer's position. When you make a sweeping, generalization such as "This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable," how do you expect the closer to give such a statement any weight? You give no indication as to what you mean by "regard to context" nor provide enough examples to support your statement. From such a sweeping, unsupported statement, it seems reasonable to conclude that you did not actually read the cited references and are making a conclusory statement based on your personal dislike for the topic. Assuming bad faith and listing your personal dislike for a topic is not a basis to delete an article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jreferee, try to keep a straight face and tell me that an article titled "The Indie 50; The essential movies." or "Let's do the Time Warp again: The Sweet Transvestite and an innocent couple collide in The Rocky Horror Show on stage" were about the song. Personally, I like the song. I have soundtrack albums from the movie and two of the stage shows, and can sing every song by heart. Doesn't make them all worth an article.Kww 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedian's should not be second guessing the decisions of reliable sources to include information about a topic in their publication. When we resort to our personal opinions about a topic or personal beliefs about the merits of the material in a reliable source publication, we censor Wikipedia on one hand and, even worse, we allow in a whole bunch of material that no one but those personally interested in the topic care about. Wikipedia has no "experts" (thankfully) and relies on the business decisions of reliable sources to determine what to include in Wikipedia and what to exclude. On the big picture, Wikipedia's approach works to exclude material from Wikipedia that is generated in a personal computer and then posted on a blog or website. It would be inconsistent to tell a COI poster that his personal opinion about the importance of a topic is irrelevant and then turn around and make personal value judgments as Wikipedians on material from reliable sources. We cannot have it both ways. Long ago, a handful of Wikipedians had their thinking caps on when they put this whole Wikipedia system together. I still remain amazed by its intertwining workings. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What we rely on is people to understand a sentence like this one: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive." None of your references address the song "Dammit Janet" in directly in detail. They just don't count.Kww 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh spare me. Wikipedians shouldn't be making decisions as to whether a source is reliable or not? We make decisions all the time about the reliability and the quality of sources. Unfortunately far too many editors labor under the misconception that a simple reference to a subject in a larger source constitutes evidence of that subject's notability, but that is simply not the case. "Someone said 'Foo' in a movie" is not evidence in support of the notability of Foo and "someone wrote 'Dammit Janet' in an article that has nothing to do with the song" is not evidence of the song's notability. Otto4711 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per snow and because it's a notable song from a notable film. Also, if this is the second nomination, shouldn't the first discussion be linked to above a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld (2nd nomination)? I see it is linked to above, but isn't the Seingeld discussion the proper format for a relisting? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously meets Wikipedia article standards. Some background - Dammit, Janet! was deleted October 6, 2007 after being listed by Otto4711 for deletion. The deletion of Dammit, Janet! then was a basis for listing the remaining Rocky Horror songs for deletion by Otto4711 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Horror songs, which I closed as no consensus on October 13, 2007. Rocky Horror songs then was listed at deletion review on October 15, 2007, closed as endorse. Using substantial new informtion, I recreated Dammit, Janet! The delete reasoning in this AfD#2 clarifies that no matter how much reliable source material exists for this song, it does not pass some sort of personal smell test some people use. Bias towards or against a topic is not a basis to keep or delete an artice. -- Jreferee t/c 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a difficult smell test It's references like http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html that smell ... an article about a performance of three songs from Rocky Horror that doesn't include "Dammit Janet" that happens to use the phrase in passing being used as a reference for notability. All of your references seem to be like that. Find me one article that is primarily about the song, not about the stage show, not about the movie, and not about Janet Jackson's breasts, and I'll accept it as a legitimate reference for the article. Find me three, and I'll call the song notable in its own right.Kww 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough sources address the Dammit, Janet! subject directly in detail to meet WP:N. Otherwise, the article would not be so well sourced. Jimmy Wales himself said, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.[12] If we adopt the high threshold for articles that you propose, we would be doing something different than what Jimbo envisioned. -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop appealing to hero worship. The standards I am trying to apply are straight out of WP:N, and it's a shame that you feel you have some right to ignore them.Kww 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that complex. I didn't make up the details in the Wikipedia article. I got them directly from the reliable sources. If it says it, I put it in; if it don't, I don't. Wikipedia policy should not be turned into rocket science. -- Jreferee t/c 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What you did was assume that any use of the words "dammit" and "Janet" in that order is a reference to the song. That's original research. And even if it weren't, what you've compiled is not an article about the song but instead a "List of times the song titl 'Dammit, Janet" was mentioned in the media". This is not a valid topic of an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per wp:common, contra otto and the nominator, the material is clearly verifiably notable per wikipedia guidelines specifically where common sense comes to play.--Buridan 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You made this same claim of obvious verifiable notability in the last AFD and, when asked to provide backup for it, fell strangely silent. Otto4711 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, because if you cannot do the basic work to see notability, i have nothing left but silence for you. this was notable before, the other materials related to rocky horror were notable before. it isn't hard to see their notability under common sense, it isn't hard to find citations that refer to this song as I indicated. It may be difficult to separate out independent notability, but then... it is hard to do that for any given scientific concept too, they both rely on the mesh of meanings and notable relations. --Buridan 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You were the one claiming that the song was independently notable. It is very easy to breeze into any old AFD you feel like and say "keep, notable" but if you are unwilling to do the work necessary to back up your claim, then you should not be surprised when your opinion is ignored as it was in that AFD. "It just is" is in no way a persuasive argument. Neither is "here's a bunch of magazine articles that use the same two words in the same order" but sadly it appears that this is the argument that will carry the day here. You are absolutely right that there are many references to the title of this song. I hope that one day soon you and other editors will come to understand that a reference to something is not substantial coverage of the thing and does not serve to establish notability.
• By the way, I wasn't the one who asked you to provide sourcing in the first AFD. It was Torchwood Who? who asked you. I guess you have nothing left but silence for him too. Otto4711 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yep, but it isn't an article that i want to invest my time in, but I can see the merits of investing in it, as the current article demonstrates. it is clear from this discussion and the article that the material was available. --Buridan 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You should at least invest the time to look at the references in the article. It quickly becomes clear that Jreferee could not find any articles or references about the song at all.Kww 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• doesn't have to, notability is established, the cites are merely for verification. --Buridan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is established by independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject, sources that address the subject directly in detail. Not a single one of the sources linked in the article address the subject of the song directly in detail. Your assertion that notability is established by these trivial mentions merely indicates that you lack even a basic understanding of WP:N. But hey, prove me wrong, you should be up for that. Show me even one source that is directly and in detail about the song. Just one. Otto4711 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• nice interpretation, but that's really not quite the standard. notability does not require the exclusive coverage that you indicate. it only requires that it is specifically covered. which, you'll note it is. stop wiki-lawyering and use wp:common. --Buridan 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't want to waste your valuable time, but please take a look at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html and tell me what definition of "significant coverage" (which is the standard in WP:N) you use that includes that one. Look at the titles of the rest, and think about what the coverage is in those. Note that Jreferee used nearly exclusively paper references, and the only online one he provides is garbage. The only way for me to prove that they don't have significant coverage is to fly to the States and go to a library with a good periodical collection, but I can make a pretty good guess that an article titled "Scottish-rooted Choke has come a long way" doesn't contain direct and significant coverage of the song.Kww 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, so what you are saying is that you do not know if the material is notable because you cannot discern the quality of the sources, even though the sources are multiple, overlap, and provide verifiability to the information in question? so where again is the basis of your afd nomination other than... 'i do not like the sources that complie with the guidelines'.--Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you tell me "direct and significant coverage" in the one, single, solitary online reference provided in the article? Did you bother to even look at it?Kww 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Interpretation"? It's a direct quote from WP:N#General_notability_guideline and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you haven't even read that guideline. At no point did I say that sources have to be "exclusive coverage." They do need to, and this is a quote from the guideline again, "address the subject directly in detail" and the coverage must be "more than trivial." The inclusion of a song's name in a source does not "address the [song] directly in detail" and such a mention is not "more than trivial." Otto4711 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• no, it wasn't a direct quote, at least not of the details you left out. they do address the song directly, just not exclusively, and trivilaity is not for you to judge alone. here for instance, they are not trivial mentions. they combined weight of trivia is knowledge. --Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (reset indent) Are you joking? You're actually going to claim that I didn't quote WP:N directly when anyone can read WP:N and compare it to my post? Is this really the level of intellectual dishonesty you have to resort to in your attempt to defend this article? I never said that coverage had to be exclusive and your insistence on assigning a word to me that I never used amounts to a lie. You're stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies. In fact, it's you who is leaving out important parts of the definition. The subject must be addressed directly and in detail. Otto4711 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• i didn't claim that at all. i claimed that you excluded the bit about an important factor. much like you tend to cite notability does not transfer, when it frequently does. you marshall the important parts of non-policy, much like i marshall the important parts of policy. i just inserted the key point of the definition. go look again and please, try to keep it in mind that we are both acting in good faith. i did not say that you did anything wrong, i just said your quotation was biased in this case because you did not quote a pertinent part of policy. people do that, it's fine when someone else points it out, that's ok. --Buridan 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To put it indelicately, bullshit. I quoted the guideline, you inserted the word "exclusively" out of nowhere and still can't coherently state what I supposedly left out. None of which changes the simple fact that no sources have been offered that demonstrate the independent notability of this subject. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps you should go reread the guideline? and i quote ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive.[2]"." you ignored the less than exclusive part. have a great day!--Buridan 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you should see if the sources satisfy the first sentence before moving on to the second. Do any of these sources address the subject of the song directly and in detail? No. No more need be said. But if you insist on looking to the second sentence, then let's look at the first part of it first. Are any of these mentions "more than trivial"? No. The mere presence of the title in an article is not under any rational definition of the word anything but trivial. The combined weight of trivia is trivia. And for someone who supposedly has no interest in investing time in this article, you sure are investing a lot of time in the AFD. Too bad you didn't use that time actually backing up your claims. Otto4711 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, they do meet that, but the sources do not need to be exclusively about that song. so an article that talks about this song and many other songs, is about this song directly, and may be in detail, but it does not have to be exclusively about the song. --Buridan 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A source that only mentions the title of a song is not about the song at all. And I still never said anything about exclusivity so the fact that you keep raising it as if I did and it has any relevance here is nothing but more intellectual dishonesty. You can't rebut the actual arguments that are being made ao you resort to making up arguments, pretending that other people made them and then responding to them. And you've once again left out part of the definition, after accusing me of doing it. The sources must discuss the subject directly and in detail. That's directly and in detail. To reiterate, the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. Has the point that the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail been made abundantly clear now? Do you get it? Otto4711 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's much less notable stuff on Wiki, and this one is a classic.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. If there is other material on Wikipedia that you believe is not notable, find reliable sources or nominate it for deletion. The non-notability of other material does not excuse the lack of notability of this material. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 05:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in New York City

Wikipedia is not a directory, catergory already exists for the notable ones, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^sup 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category is appropriate. Delete. —Verrai 19:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, Verrai. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the talk page for WikiProject New York City.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It basically just duplicates the category. The list is laughable, and certainly not notable. Marc Shepherd 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I notified the most recent two editors; I want to hear their comments. there might be an unwieldy number of potential restaurants. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no problems with this being deleted as has been said earlier - I think it duplicates the category. Postcard Cathy 10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for potentially extremely large lists, categories are preferred. This is such a list. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category ensures only notable restaurants are kept. Spellcast 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. There is no reason for this to exist on Wikipedia especially ing catagory. [[Guest9999 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Wittman

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no assertion of notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White (reporter)

Tim White (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, the only notable thing about him is his role on Sightings, and that part can be merged there if valuable enough. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seven seasons as host of a major network show is fairly notable, as are the multiple regional Emmy awards[13]http://www.nataslgl.org/emmy/winners99.html] he's won. There are two more from his work in Washington, DC that I can't find specific cites for, but are in his bio. Which also indicates he's hosted numerous shows for other networks. Problem: parts of this article look to be lifted from said bio - but that's repairable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -News coverage seems significant. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Jerome

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

Delete - no notability. Had minor 13 week appearance on a soap opera after winning a reality show I Wanna Be a Soap Star. No other work of note. Does not meet notability criteria for having an article. Information also lacks sourcing. IrishLass0128 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to meet notability requirements to me. -Drdisque 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 25 October 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. --Coredesat 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Holt

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

Non-notable actress, COI addition to the database, no notable performances which make her famous enough to have an article. Corvus cornix 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable enough to have article. --Alessandro 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote as yet, but it seems that the same person (or someone claiming the same name) also added the information to the IMDb database. That would seem to me to be a strike against. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable at this time. WP:COI suggests that if she were more notable, she should be able to rely on disinterested parties to create a proper article for her instead. With only her self-added IMDb data and her official website, independent tertiary sources are lacking at the moment. (And I'm skeptical of IMDb's vetting of her information. They certainly don't seem to have cared that she apparently added 2 largely overlapping mini-bios, when even one is a bit unseemly.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles like this for folks with minor notability are ripe for coi problems and even worse BLP violations. Delete unless a solid reliable source offers significant evidence of notablity and background information. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only cited source is from IMDB, of which, it seems to be written by her. Not enough note-worthy credits either. TGreenburgPR 01:38, 25 October 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stylus 1 Operation

The Stylus 1 Operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bogus/vanity article, no Google results except for the WP entry - creator has history of vandalism and nonsense. - eo 18:42, 19 October 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. --Coredesat 05:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2talk

2talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No third party sources for this article about nn company. A bit of a promo piece. Fails WP:CORP & WP:N Carlossuarez46 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP, one of a million VoIP companies. Very spammy, no outside coverage provided. shoeofdeath 05:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepless Nights (band)

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

Despite the references on the talk page, this still seems like a nonnotable band to me. They've released just one EP and are "working on" a second album. The CBC listing appears to be directly copied from the band's MySpace page. NawlinWiki 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is currently playing the pop explosion in Halifax and have a full length album coming out before the end of the year for their winter tour in mid November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carerejoe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete* Does not meet music notability guidelines. Dlabtot 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepless Nights have released one full length record. One split 7inch record and one EP. The 4th release, a full length called "turn into vapour" will be released in January on Forward Music Group. (http://www.forwardmusicgroup.com) The Hang up EP has charted on numerous college radio stations, as well as the national earshot chart. Reaching number 1 at a few of the college level. http://65.61.201.48/charts/2007/July/top200.cfm (number 81) They are going to be heading out on their 4th tour this year at the start of November. Have shared the stage with such acts as Jon Rae & the river, the meligrove band(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meligrove_Band), wintersleep(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintersleep, In-flight safety(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Flight_Safety), Raising the fawn(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Fawn), The Hylozolists(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoists_%28band%29), Grand Theft bus(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Bus) & the juno award winning Wooden Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wooden_Stars)

Matt MacDonald of the band also plays in The Superfantastics, who have just finished a tour with Blue Heller. Which is Julie Doiron(polaris award nominee and performer) and Dick Morello(of shotgun and jaybird)

Recently have played the Halifax Pop Explosion and got national press on the show. http://chartattack.com/damn/2007/10/1803.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.92.25 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is also being showcased this year at the Nova Scotia Music Awards. http://www.musicnovascotia.ca/NSMW07/Showcases.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.92.25 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they're going to get to the point where they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines eventually, but right now they're still not quite getting there. If someone has more media coverage that would qualify as reliable sources, I'd be interested to see it, but for the moment weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do not yet meet WP:MUSIC. maybe someday. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:49, 25 October 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 Already Deleted by Secret at 05:42, October 23, 2007 (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance). Afd discussion closed by B1atv 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

ENERTIA: Pure American Metal

ENERTIA: Pure American Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline per WP:MUSIC and is completely unreferenced. I have tried to find sources about this band but the results have been unsuccessful. I found four MySpace mentions and an official website but no news sources of any kind. AngelOfSadness talk 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable band, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There seems to be several groups with this name (US & Australia), mainly myspace & similar references. Nothing found to support the allegations of albums & tours made in the article.SkierRMH 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster School

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

No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria, lots of original research, probably conflict of interest from primary contributers. Guest9999 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm confused...I don't see any original research. In addition...it's an 81 year old private school with notable alumni. Per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools have generally passed notability requirements by being in existence. I have trouble believing an 81 year old school is not notable...so yes...my keep reason is essentially..."It's old". Smashville 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as obviously notable school, around a long time, with notable alumni. No reasonable attempt to fix the article or to research its notability has been made. Also, fulfills WP:OUTCOMES. BTW, I reverted the removal of its AfD tag and blocked the SPA who did it. I'll find some sites. As a courtesy, fellow sysops, please leave this AfD open for at least a few days unless you keep it. Bearian 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. 24,000 Ghits; see [14]. Bearian 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources are provided to clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. If only all school articles were of this quality. There doesn't seem to be any OR here, and COI seems to be irrelevant here. Alansohn 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, folks, let's refrain from nominating high schools unless their campus is someone's garage. SolidPlaid 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not feel it's old is a reasonable arguemnt for keeping the article - there are trees in my back garden that are far older which don't have articles (and probably shouldn't). common outcomes is not a policy or guideline - it is just a summary of past decidions it does not superceed policies or guideline (see at the top: "For rules, guidelines, and consensus on a more detailed basis, visit the various notability policy pages instead"). I do not think the fact that notable alumni may have attended makes the school notable, notability is not inherited and a subject should be notable in its own right. Unless the alumni have caused there to be "significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources" of the school then it should not have its own article per WP:NN. Currently the article is not written from a neutral point of view (although this could be changed) and unless there are independent sources that show that the article is notable (per WP:NN) that will make the information contained in the article verifiable I do not feel it belongs on Wikipedia. Of course if such sources are found I will withdraw my nomination if there is no dissenting arguemnt within the debate. [[Guest9999 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep the very purpose of a school is to produce alumni, and its fame in the world is measured by who the alumni turn out to be. This is a major element of notability. Among the various high schools with potential articles, this is probably in the top bracket by any reasonable standard. Even those who do not think all high schools notable agree that the best of them are. DGG (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply It says specifically on WP:NN that notability "is distinct from "fame","importance", or "popularity".". I would also question the level of "its fame in world" personally having spend significant amounts of time in various locations around Europe, Africa and Asia I do not think I have met anyone who could name an American High School they are not personaly linked to, even though they would be able to name hundreds or thousands of Americans have (in all probablility) an education. [[Guest9999 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• If Wikipedia notability is distinct from fame, etc., why would its notability be dependent on how many people in Europe and Asia have heard of the school? Alansohn 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I wasn't clear, my point was two-fold. 1) Fame isn't the same as notability and 2) The topic in question isn't famous anyway (at least on the world scale that was claimed). I know that the second point is a bit redundant but I felt it was worth bringing up, it was meant as a reply not a stand alone comment. [[Guest9999 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• The claim is that the school is notable, not famous. Let's leave famous out of this and address the claims of notability made in the article for the school. Alansohn 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I completely agree; forget about fame. My point is that there is no evidence given on the page that the school is notable - in that there is no evidence of significant coverage by multiple indepedent secondary sources. No such sources have been presented in the debate - people have just talked about fame, age and famous alumni. [[Guest9999 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I and others have added more cites to prove notability. Famous alumni and teachers are often the only way to prove a school's notability -- students are the products or outcomes of a school, and teachers are the means, which prove its worth. Bearian 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because the article is extensive and has many references and also per this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article seems written and reffed to an acceptable level. If any major flaws exist they should be addressed with regular editing per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 18:38, 23 October 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 Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album) B1atv 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

You Should Have Lied

You Should Have Lied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Because the only source for this articles existance is someones review of the album on CD Universe and a user keeps on adding the cover of the single which is fake. Lillygirl 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect into Stephanie McIntosh Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album). As it stands now, the article is a WP:CBALL. The info that is there, is largely unsourced. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't redirect to the artist, redirect to the album - Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album). When it actually becomes a single, then the redirect can be undone. Corvus cornix 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album) until WP:CBALL issues are resolved. SkierRMH 18:57, 20 October 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. Carioca 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Promise

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

Non notable? Doesn't assert notability at any rate, nor does it seem particularly special. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't assert notability, and since it says it's published in October 2007 that's not surprising. There seem to be serveral companies called Evangel Press, and none appear to be major publishers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero hits in the garden of Google for the complete title. No mention of notability in article. SkierRMH 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination, this subject is not verifiably notable. Burntsauce 16:51, 24 October 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 g1, g3, obvious hoax, mostly copied from Wellington Koo (including the picture). NawlinWiki 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wang

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

Obvious hoax. Claims to have lived for over one hundred years, from 1887 to 1990, yet the "picture" is from 2005. The picture is also not of this person; it's listed as being of Vi-Hyuin Wellington Koo. GlassCobra 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks to be a well written hoax. Anyway, it appears fail WP:NOTE. Tiddly-Tom 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]