Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intermodal Transit Center Station Station

This article appears to be an exact copy of Intermodal Transit Center Station and was probably created in error, judging by the odd repetition of "station" in the title. Cnbrb 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably created mistakenly. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same copy of Intermodal Transit Center Station, probably a mistake. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mistake--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I warned the creator on his talk page, just in case. Hold open for 24 hours. Bearian 14:54, 10 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; I've created a redirect to Murderball as suggested. Fl owerparty^☀ 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder ball

Today, I looked at this article with a view to deleting this recently added content as unreferenced, and in accordance with Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Then I considered the fact that this article has been tagged as unreferenced for over six months. I wondered if the whole thing wasn't unreferenced, unreferenceable, and essentially made up in school one day. I did my homework; googling "Murder ball" turned up this page as the first hit, and many references to the film Murderball, about the sport of wheelchair rugby. When I excluded "Murderball" and "rugby" from the results, I got almost 10,000 hits; seems there's enough out there for an encyclopedia article, but on closer inspection it's a real hodge-podge of articles about dodgeball variations, articles that happen to juxtapose "murder" and "ball" for some reason, references to Nick Cave (who knew?), and a few links that discuss games something like what is on this page. In short, murder ball - in the sense used in this article - seems to be a catch-all term for any number of variations on full or partial contact ball games that are, well, made up in school one day. I was tempted to just replace the page with a redirect to either the film Murderball or to dodgeball, or with a disambiguation page pointing to both, but I'm not sure that's emphatic enough. I think this page needs to be deleted and buried. When that's done, a new page - disambiguation, probably - can be created. Eron ^Talk 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to put that thing you thought up whilst you were bored in school. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NFT. Re-create as dab per nom--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and dab out to at least Murderball and Tag_(game)#Smear_the_queer humblefool ® 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable elemetary school tag variant.MarsRover —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then REDIRECT to Wheelchair rugby which is a legitimate sport played by disabled people. Burntsauce 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is going to be a redirect, it should probably be to Murderball (film). I would recommend a disambiguation page, actually, as someone could be looking for the film, or for the sport, or for the schoolyard game (for which I would send them to Dodgeball. - Eron ^Talk 01:18, 9 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 all. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor book 1 characters

While I understand peoples need to put information about everything on Wikipedia. But three articles full of characters that only appear once in a 60 episode series is a little overkill. None of it is cited, and I think I can state truthfully that none of it is neccasary. This information would be better suited to be on an Avatar Wiki. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete All Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I honestly don't know why people feel the need to add every single piece of information they come across that isn't already in Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into a main list of characters for the show "Avatar." This is just needless fan cruft. Ανέκδοτο 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was one lis but then it got to big. The Placebo Effect 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you need to learn how to copy edit and get rid of unimportant informationsRidernyc 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Delete and merge"? And how, pray tell, would one merge something that's been deleted already?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this might be the first time I have ever seen the title of an article fail to prove notabilityRidernyc 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_minor_recurring_characters should also be added to this list.Ridernyc 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shoundn't. The nom specifically mentions the entires in these lists appear "once in a 60 episode series", and that page specifically lists characters with multiple appearances. Bundling it in would make no sense.--Fyre2387
Keep I think that there is much relevant information here, however distributing this among the many other articles seems like a more discoverable place. --220.237.54.50 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete All as notability of these characters is not supported by any sources, not even primary ones. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 10 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: This is a poorly written article about an exceptionally non-notable individual, and this AfD is going off the rails. I was watching the game, and he certainly got a good round of applause and prime focus for a couple of minutes, but he was in no highlights later on in the evening, no mention in any national media, and has largely been forgotten one day later. Let this be clear: this isn't about lack of any real 14-minutes-of-fame notability, there are BLP concerns, too. He's a 17 year old kid, he was a hero for about 5 minutes, and everyone moved on. We shall, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Vinik

This guy has no notability. What he did didn't affect the outcome of the game; only one run was scored in that frame after he caught the ball, and they won 6-3. Let's just have articles for every single fan who ever tried to catch a foul ball. Ksy92003(talk) 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person; he didn't affect the outcome of the game, as it is implied. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - This most certainly affected the outcome of the game. Review the situation, if Vinik does not make contact with the ball, Mathis, in almost all likelyhood, catches the foul ball for the second out of the inning, bringing Lowell up with 2 outs and men on 1B and 2B. His fly ball is rendered meaningless in this scenario. Instead Ramirez is still alive and walks to load the bases with only 1 out, allowing Lowell to hit a game tying sacrifice fly. (AZrooter 23:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- - But if Mathis made the catch, then it'd be 3-2. Manny still hit the 3-run home run in the 9th which would've only made it 5-3, still a victory for Boston. Ksy92003(talk) 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Possibly but you cannot really predict the game situation that far in advance. But AFAWK Lowell does something to extend the inning the instead of flying out, things change. (AZrooter 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong delete - Jeffrey Maier and Steve Bartman both received extensive press. This is the first time I've heard this guy's name and I was really only vaguely aware of the situation to begin with. Totally non-notable. Nosleep1234 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, this fan didn't catch a ball that was in play, renderring the controversial aspect lending notability to Maier and Bartman completely nil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosleep1234 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. If the ball was caught it would have been the 2nd out and Lowell's sac fly would have ended the inning. The Sox might have lost because then Manny might not even get up in the bottom of the ninth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.238.172 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to 2007 American League Division Series, the event with which he is associated. --Metropolitan90 00:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This incident can in no be compared to Jeffrey Maier or Steve Bartman. There's no proven effect to the game, and the fan hasn't really been lauded and/or vilified. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwolf75 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Vinik is now as notable a figure as Bartman or Maier, both of whom have extensive entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughbased (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic scandal

WP:COATRACK, POV fork, and unsourced list in violation of WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a coatrack and a POV fork, no sources. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a fairly arbitrary collection of events. It's not an article, it's a list. I can see some rationale to the list, but why are "Academic experiments with ethical issues" in here? I can't see Stanford Prison Experiment really being an "academic scandal" (and while there perhaps ought to be a category containing it and Milgram experiment, and I suppose Little Albert and the The Monster Study too). As for unsourced list in violation of BLP, I think Scientific misconduct#Cases of alleged scientific misconduct and related incidents qualifies there too. I see we have Category:Scientific misconduct, I suppose a category for a broader "academic misconduct", is equally defensible. OTOH Many cases that are worth discussing in this context will be false accusations, or unfounded allegations, and I don't see how a category can include such cases without inferring actual misconduct. In that case only a proper, sourced, article can cover the topic. One can be writen, but this is not it. Recommend deletion of this list, and the list Scientific misconduct#Cases of alleged scientific misconduct and related incidents, if the cases cannot be discussed (and sourced) they ought not to be mentioned. Pete.Hurd 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sort of article is a indiscriminate selection of miscellaneous events, most but not necessarily all of them of them notable. This sort of summary list is inherently selective and unfair--and in fact one or two of the items seem to be altogether unfair; it is not the way to go, and raises major BLP and NPOV concerns. I agree with what Pete said just above. There are other lists of this sort in WP, where complex issues are summarized in a sentence, and I'd like to see them all removed. This is a good place to start. DGG (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. The definition of what constitutes a scandal is inherently arbitrary and POV. Perfectly good articles already exist for scientific misconduct and academic dishonesty, which are more clearly-defined subjects and cover most, if not all, of what could be called academic scandals. Cosmo0 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also as violating WP:LIST. I am somewhat suspicious that only one scandal was cited, a possible coatrack problem. Bearian 14:59, 10 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Norville

Contested PROD. Non-notable flautist. No evidence that he passes WP:N. Tagged with notability concerns since June with no improvement. No references. Google hits very low, "Dexter Norville" flute OR flautist -wikipedia producing only 7 hits. Prod removed by an editor who wrongly thought that Norville had won the BBC Young Musician of the Year award, whereas the article in fact only refers to him winning a prize of the same name in a local competition in his University town (Guildford, not Guilford, being the base of the U. of Surrey). Bencherlite ^Talk 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Winning a non-notable local award is not notable enough for inclusion. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Doesn't it seem ridiculous that this guy's biggest claim to fame is that he won a scholarship sponsored by my local Saab/Subara/Lotus dealership?--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated - should have died as part of PROD --Rumping 12:05, 7 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. GRBerry 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants & Coffee

Article in its current state fails to assert the notability of an India-based coffee company. Not a chain, only one indepedantly owned store. Instead of a CSD notice, wanted to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Luke! 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. This reminds of an AfD nomination concerning a yoghurt shop that was closed as delete. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia ain't the Yellow Pages. - Eron ^Talk 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:37, 8 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel's Halloween Month 2007

Prodded, the prod was removed. The prodder expressed concerned of notability, and I also believe the list is completely unencyclopediac. UsaSatsui 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is an unencyclopedic list and reads like an advert. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, if not Speedy - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info, and we definitely don't need articles for promotional events TV channels have. Ανέκδοτο 00:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. --Metropolitan90 00:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Metropolitan90.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is solely based on Disney marketing and directory information. No reliable secondary source has noted this "event". --NrDg 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that WP:NOT TV Guide. Burntsauce 17:13, 8 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. The precedent has also been solidified by the deletion of the other, similar articles that were on AFD. Danaman5 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts)

As Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) this is a WP:COATRACK for WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS violations.

Delete - as nom. 1of3 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack and per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much the same stuff as List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses.Student7 23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person doing research on sex abuse will find many news articles and wikipedia pages about this issue in the Catholic Church. However, even though a US Dept of Education Study in 2002 revealed that between 6-10percent of public school students are subjected to the same abuse from teachers each year on a much wider scale, there is relatively little news coverage of this serious issue. Wikipedia would be serving a public need by providing a place where these cases could be accumulated for use by researchers or those who are curious about the issue. I think it would be a tremendous disservice to eliminate this effort to bring the whole truth to light.NancyHeise 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the study said 6-10% suffered abuse or harassment. 1of3 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NF24.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the information might be useful somewhere, none of these cases are particularly notable. Unfortunately. humblefool ® 03:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article describes several notable cases.Biophys 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfair. an indiscriminate list, in the true sense--includes some random cases. The notable ones that meet BLP standards should get articles. The ones that don't, should not. I consider this is an attempt to evade WP:N and BLP. An article could be written about Sex abuses in Massachusetts schools focusing on the legal or public opinion issues, not the individual cases, but that's not what this does. Though names are not mentioned in the article, there is still in my opinion implied BLP and NPOV concerns. DGG (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been anonymized since it's nomination. Student7 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole series. This article is one of a series of similar articles. I found Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Florida), Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa), and Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas), all of which are similar in tone and style (and are already on AFD). I could see somebody writing a useful article on sex abuse in american schools, but these indiscriminate (or perhaps specifically chosen?) lists of cases are not appropriate encyclopedia articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even were anonymity possible to everyone's satisfaction, listing every person of a particular type who has committed a particular crime just isn't encyclopedic - it's the basis of original research and does nothing to reflect the significant opinions of experts on the subject. We're not a database of cases from which to build theories or launch campaigns. -- SiobhanHansa 00:21, 9 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, lack of verifiability and notability. —Verrai 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zybourne Clock

Non-notable video game project, possibly even a hoax article. Not sure whether it's a hoax or actually a real project, but judging from a google search it's a hoax as there seems to be no real information about the game available. All the google hits lead to the SomethingAwful forums (such as here or here) or sites like this. Aqwis 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a hoax, but in any case is a violation of the crystal balling policy. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the Zybourne Clock entry.

I'm really new to this "talking on wickerpedia" concept, so I'm unfamiliar with much of the code, but I just want to say that I use this page to watch for ZC (That's what all my friends and I call it. We're really big fans!) updates, and if it's deleted, I don't really know where I'll be able to go to follow the development and view updates now that the project has become incredibly secretive.

From what I know, the game's development is taking place almost entirely between members of the SomethingAwful forums via PM, email, fax, and/or old fashioned "snail mail", so I imagine that's why finding information is very difficult. I can personally verify that the game is indeed real, and not a hoax, as I was present on the forums during the earliest stages of the project, when the collaborators were openly allowing material to be leaked. If I remember correctly, the members involved in the project had even set up their own forum at one point, though I think they abandoned it soon afterward, due to the heavy, heavy traffic they were receiving from fans of the game.

I also disagree on the fact that it breaks the "Crystal Ball Policy", because almost all the information in the entry, except for information on Dr. Zybourne's relationship with Sylus (which is speculation, I will agree), is correct and has come straight from the developers themselves. I personally believe that the only reason that sources cannot be provided is because most of this information has been taken from direct quotes (e.g. One of the creators did in fact provide the concept regarding the timelines replacing one another and did provide the "ball knocking another ball off a cliff" metaphor) , and the secrecy of the project and the need of it's developers to keep so much from being leaked makes it difficult to provide a concrete link.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Please don't delete the article. LittleBarnacle 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course all hits are SA, its a game being made by the forum members, or "goons", if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.191.213 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please do not remove this page, as the Zybourne Clock project has many followers eagerly awaiting its release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.157.153 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. -- Whpq 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to provide reliable sources, the game hasn't been covered by the gaming media.--Dans1120 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:N, The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. So if there are no reliable sources, then it's because there is insufficient notability. -- Whpq 19:41, 8 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tesoro EP

The {{prod}} tag I placed on this page was removed, but I still think this article should be considered for deletion, so I am opening up a discussion. The creator and only major contributor to this article, User:TEntertainment has been banned indefinitely for using Wikipedia for advertisement as of October 5, 2007. I feel that because of this, this article, essentially an advertisement for an album released by his company, should be removed to allow for organic recreation by the community, if the album meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite and re-nominate, Blimey, I'm actually disagreeing with NF24. I mean, I know it'd still only scrape through WP:N, but it seems like there could be some notability asserted here, what with the CVs of the producer and the mixer, but it could be that it'd fall foul of WP:NOTINHERITED. However, right now it is a really horrible article, so let's do something about it quick, then see where we get to with another AfD.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I suppose I should vote too. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, esp. WP:MUSIC. Bearian 15:01, 10 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 take this article off the air. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight FM

non-notable, vanity, original research Rapido 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my argument under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thameside Radio. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings in the future. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Very little forces procedural opposes faster than mass listings. i ^said 04:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:ORG, WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:NPOV.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 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 - Wikidemo's unchallenged arguments carry the day and are persuasive that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. The reamaining arguments related to importance/significance lack conviction that the article fails CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

I've had a look at the notability criteria and can't find anything that says any political party is by default notable. There are many political parties in the UK. Every local and general election there are people who stand for various parties formed in the pub. In searching for sources for this party I found them mentioned on this list which includes " Tiger's Eye", "Telepathic Partnership", etc. Then I found this List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005, which suggests that there is an intention to have an article on each of these parties. Now if that is the case then I think we need some consensus criteria on what makes a political party notable. My suggestion would be the party either has an elected candidate, or has made a significant impact as demonstrated by reliable sources. Neither of these cases applies to Church of the Militant Elvis Party. So my feeling is that this article, and others like it, should be deleted. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a real political party, just a name thought up by an enterprising self-publicist. Good luck to him, but it is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Monty Python sketch material. JJL 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments as regards notability, then maybe move to WP:BJAODN.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then oversight any mention of BJAODN just to be safe. Burntsauce 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs sourcing but I see mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press. This easily establishes notability. Simply because something is a joke or a fringe group does not make it non-notable. See Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Plenty of Monty Python sketches about organizations and parties are notable as well for their humor, not for the reality of , e.g. The Ministry of Silly Walks. Wikidemo 14:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with minor uk political parties or with Joke Uk political parties. If such a list doesnt allready exist one should be created.--Lucy-marie 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep My criterion is this: In a few years' time, when I'm reading about elections in the 2000s and I come across a mention of the Miltant Elvis Party, I want to be able to find details in Wikipedia. Similarly, when I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the Erewash constituency, I want to be able to find out about the parties mentioned. It doesn't matter how serious or large a party is or is not - if it has contested elections and is mentioned in other Wiki pages it deserves at least a short article of its own. Emeraude 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - political parties registered with the government are notable. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that your personal view, or is there a consensual guideline on Wiki? I couldn't find one. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:56, 13 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tesoro Entertainment

The {{prod}} tag I placed on this page was removed, but I still think this article should be considered for deletion, so I am opening up a discussion. The creator and only major contributor to this article, User:TEntertainment has been banned indefinitely for using Wikipedia for advertisement as of October 5, 2007. I feel that because of this, this article, essentially an advertisement for his company, should be removed to allow for organic recreation by the community, if the company meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NF24. Ah, the mentally therapeutic wonders of Monty Python. It's also worth mentioning that notability is not inherited, so even if Ashley Tesoro is notable, this isn't until it's achieved notability in its own right.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails demonstrate notability under criteria WP:CORP.--Gavin Collins 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Delete. Spam and non-notable. An easy case. Wikidemo 11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, blatant advertising, etc. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NF24 et al. Bearian 15:02, 10 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 No consensus - Copyvio concerns rendered moot by Wwwhatsup. If the station was significant in keeping the free radio flag flying in the late 60s, the relaible sources likely are in old papers rather than on the Interent. Strip away the copyvio discussion and the only thing remaining is no consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Kaleidoscope

non-notable pirate station, copied from website http://www.gunfleet.com/page13/page13.html Rapido 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you check that link? I get a 404 error. i ^said 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio and tagged as such. Someguy1221 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Yup. Definitely a copyvio. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The linked site attributes text to "Mark King August 2007", while this article's history traces back to June 13 2007. The text in this article does read like ad copy (a notion supported by the "press@radio-k.com" annotation at the bottom of the first revision), but it does not necessarily constitute copyright infringement. The user who posted this content released it under the GFDL, and the provided link does nothing to negate that release. Note that I'm not commenting in support of this article, just that this discussion should focus on the article's claims of notability and advertorial purpose. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy or not (I did in fact delete it in an edit conflict with Anetode's declining of speedy) - I am not sufficiently convinced that the person who submitted it is the owner of the copyrighted website (as the editor has the username Jollyorange which corresponds with a former DJ named Steve T. which doesn't match Mark King the purported copyright holder). Any way, I suppose that in that business pseudonyms are part of the game. In any event, apart from the copyvio - there are no 3rd party references, and the tone is more promotional than is proper. "Radio Kaleidoscope" does generate lots of ghits, as apparently it is a not uncommon tag line for a radio station - there's one in Grenoble and another in Poland, as well as a slew of podcasts - that generate many of the ghits. There are a few (books) that appear to be RSes for the Radio Kaleidoscope but they are in the nature of covering the entire pirate radio phenomenon - without access to the books it is difficult to tell whether this radio station gets significant coverage or is just mentioned in lists of such stations as just one of the instances. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Could be made into a good article, passes WP:ORG with flying colours, but for now is just a copyvio.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We don't need to clutter up AFD with obvious copyright violations. Burntsauce 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The station was significant in keeping the free radio flag flying in the late 60s, and was just about the only station, apart from John Peel on the BBC, to air underground rock at the time. I've rewritten the article to render copyvio concerns moot.Wwwhatsup 02:28, 10 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 and move to Salacoa Creek. The article has been significantly improved since the start of this debate. Espresso Addict 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salacoa, Georgia

Confusing, possible copyvio. Prod twice removed by creator. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unenyclopedic and confusing. Needs a severe cleanup to get it near keep status. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article isn't even really under the correct name. There is no "Salacoa, Georgia," and this article is about Salacoa Creek which is in Calhoun, Georgia. That said, the article should really be moved to Salacoa Creek and then substubbed to something that isn't a copyvio. If I can get a speedy close on this, I'll go ahead and do that, as that is probably the best solution. LaMenta3 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged as copyvio; the book is available online under a copyright notice here. Offending entry is in the PDF under the "S" link. Thomjakobsen 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the copyvio and stub-ified the article. I still think that the article needs to be moved to a more appropriate name, but I'll wait until the AfD closes to do that. LaMenta3 02:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stubified per WP:HEY. Real places are per se notable. Bearian 15:04, 10 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 both Consensus is that neither article meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Gruber

Do we really need all of this duplicate information from this article? It is a fictional character that is already noted in the article for the movie. I am proposing a Delete and Redirect to Die Hard. Rjd0060 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete both and redirect per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge important parts, then redirect. i ^said 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make redirects, check if there's anything to merge. --Tone 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would have merged, like I did for Holly Gennaro McClane, Matt Farrell, and Richard Thornburg (Die Hard); no need for AFD. Throw Zeus Carver in there too. hbdragon88 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not appear to be enough infomation about this guy to warrent his own page. Nubula 18:14, 11 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. GRBerry 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze FM

another non-notable pirate station, vanity Rapido 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument under Thameside Radio. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, probably spam.P4k 01:51, 7 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. GRBerry 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy FM

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument under Thameside Radio. Nominator is encouraged to combine similar listings in the future (see WP:AFD for instructions). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:13, 6 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 both. - Consensus is that neither topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 07:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke and Stride

Does this count as advertising ? As per previous tag, there seems to be a conflict of interest regarding the creator of this page. thisisace 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both. Both articles are mostly an unencyclopedic list. It's not advertising, but we do have a Conflict of interest. They also seem to heavily mention Brent Foster, who is a notable swimmer. May I remind the creator that notability is not inherited? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol isn't swimrun just 2/3 of a triathlon? At any rate, the sport isn't notable and neither is the championship. i ^said 04:11, 7 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. --Aarktica 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel Radio

non-notable station, vanity Rapido 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides being NN, I think it could count as OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Two mentions -- [[2]], Google books. There also was an unrelated, Italian Carousel Radio and Television Program in the 1970s. -- Jreferee t/c 07:44, 13 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. --Aarktica 08:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JVF Clique

non-notable musical group; suspected vanity Rapido 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all twelve criterion of WP:MUSIC. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Their webiste says their name is JVF Radio. -- Jreferee t/c 07:56, 13 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 no consensus. --Aarktica 09:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Broadcasting Corporation

advertisement for non-notable pirate radio station Rapido 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS (no myspaces as sources) and WP:N as well. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs more work. DBC is definitely notable as the first ethnic pirate radio station in the UK. Myspace is not listed as a source, merely a WP:EL. There exist other sources including the BBC one included in the article. Wwwhatsup 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Neneh Cherry was the first to play rap music in the UK. Station founder Lepke & DJ Miss P are siblings-in-law to Bob Marley as mentioned in the Rita Marley article. Wwwhatsup 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major groundbreaker for black music in the UK. Rotovia 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly sounds significant and it seems like sufficient sources are out there.[3] Considering that the station almost certainly doesn't exist anymore there's no justification for calling this an ad.P4k 07:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The idea that it was either notable or a 'groundbreaker' is nonsensical - this is why I nominated it. The station was only on for a few hours one single day a week and to a small part of North London. It wasn't even heard of at the time by most black people. Just to give you some idea of the scale, a notable national pirate, Radio Caroline, gets over a third of a million hits in Google. A less famous regional pirate from the '60s called Radio 270 that most people have long forgotten about (only operated for a year to the mainly rural Yorkshire area) gives 22,900 hits. In Google, "Dread Broadcasting Corporation" gives 697 hits, which is probably more than their ratings ever were. Granted there are mentions in books, almost all of them written in the past few years by authors who have presumably only just been made aware of the station and certainly never listened to it at the time - I seriously doubt Neneh Cherry was a DJ on it or that the station was the first to play rap music - altho' put the two rumours together and it's a really good story to tell! There is a lot of misinformation and people wanting to rewrite history; well I lived in London in the '80s... listened to pirates too, and I can assure people that it was no more than a bedroom affair, albeit one that still seems good at maintaining a certain hype. Rapido 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Who cares if you listened to London pirates in the 80s? Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, not personal experience.P4k 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
I owe you an apology Rapido. The article was obviously started by someone associated with the station, and I don't know if there are that many sources out there about it, so whatever.P4k 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DBC DJ line-up included Neneh Cherry, Paul Simonon, Keith Allen and Lloyd Bradley. ^[1] It is true they were only on the air one day a week. DBC started in 1979 on AM with limited reach. In 1980 they moved to FM and broadcast from the tops of tower blocks, later sharing the 'Our Radio' transmitter with several other stations. Reception was good in most of central London. It's also true that, especially in it's early days, the station was snubbed by many West Indians - who felt that radio should be formal, like the BBC - but it was very popular with the punks and brought streetwise reggae to a larger audience, eventually leading to it's inclusion on Capital Radio etc., and Miss P getting a job with the BBC. In 1983, facing repeated busts they packed it in, with the genre having been established as viable public programming, and a new wave of South London pirates taking their place. Another aspect of DBC's influence was their championing of erstwhile NY producers such as Bullwackie and playing the new Studio One disco mixes also out of NY. The DBC style was distinct enough that Trojan Records in the UK in 2004 released a compilation based on the station's playlist. ^[2]Wwwhatsup 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N. Plenty of reliable source material from Google books by themselves. Also, there is info going back to at least 1983: (1) Men & Matters: London pirates. Financial Times. March 3, 1983. (2) U.S. Pirates prosper on the British Airways. New York Times. September 20, 1984. (3) British Government Goes After Pirate Radio An AP Extra. Associated Press. September 5, 1985. (4) Dread Broadcasting Corp; (5) Black to the future. -- Jreferee t/c 08:13, 13 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 - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kool FM

advertisement for non-notable radio station Rapido 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, spam, wonderful spam. I especially love the interview at the end of the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete per CSD G12, substantial copy of link below. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does copying something from Myspace (specifically, this one) count as a copyvio? If it does, then it is a candidate for speedy deletion per CSD G12. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a website, thus it's a copyvio. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid that "substantially" is not good enough. If there's any content in the article (or the prior revisions) that was not borrowed, then the entire article can't be deleted per G12. Please exercise care and due diligence when adding speedy deletion tags. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Rtphokie 22:22, 6 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheeseman

non-notable web site -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:WEB. No sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idem NASCAR Fan 24: not notable, no sources, appearing like spam. Martial BACQUET 21:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The userid of the only contributor to this article coupled with the lack of sources leads me to believe it's spam. --Rtphokie 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - fails WP:V and WP:WEB; No sources, no notability; and his only other edits were to vandalise the New York City article. Kinda says it all. Rgds, --Trident13 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm pretty sure this can be speedily deleted, am I right? Burntsauce 17:15, 8 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. Single-purpose accounts aside, the question of reliable third-party sources has not been addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardus (computer game)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Procedural nomination. Originally prodded by Icerainbow (talk · contribs), and deleted, then restored at DRV. Previous AFD nomination is here. Wafulz 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I prod the article? It was done by icerainbow. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I seem to have mindlessly (whether or not you believe me is up to you) sub'd the template here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've defended the article from vandalism and defended the article at the last AFD. The game has only gotten more notable/reported on since then so I have no reasons to delete it (yes, it does have its problems but those could be solved with some effective copywriting). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it got prodded and restored, it's probably notable enough. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, prods are restored whenever they are contested. It has nothing to do with notability.-Wafulz 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Wafulz says, undeletion is standard procedure when a prod is contested. It doesn't say anything about the notability of the subject. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SNOWBALL The article has sources, content, and seems to be fairly NPOV.EvanCarroll 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I looked at this article - I thought it looked familiar when it turned up on DRV - it didn't string three words together in a row that were verifiable from the legitimate sources it cited (which, then as now, were nearly lost amid the content-free promotional links). I'll try again later tonight when I have some more time, but I somehow doubt anything's changed. —Cryptic 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reread the article and the provided sources (through machine translation). At this point, the sum total overlap between what we have now and a properly sourced article would read "Pardus is a online multiplayer science fiction game implemented in Flash." (This completely sets aside the question of the sources' reliability, which I don't feel qualified to assess as a nonspeaker.) The article has been tagged with a request for better sourcing for months with no improvement whatsoever. As we have neither a need nor interest in merely reproducing promotional material from the game's manual, the article should be purged of all non-independently-verifiable material if kept. Since that would leave us with a single-sentence substub, delete. —Cryptic 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning towards delete~~Abstain. There's really only one non-trivial reliable source (the German IT one, assuming it isn't just a blog). The other sources mentioned in the previous AFD are a collection of screenshots, a student newspaper, and a mention in a newsletter.-Wafulz 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read German so I have no idea what's going on with the sources provided, so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement call here. Can someone check de.wikipedia and see if they've had anything on this. I know it's not entirely relevant since they have different guidelines, but it'd be nice to know.-Wafulz 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you can see above, the recent suggestion to delete this entry was initiated by User:TheSeer.

TheSeer has been attacking Pardus for some time. He hosts the website parduswatch.com, which is little more than anti-Pardus criticisms. Therefore I do not feel TheSeer’s suggestion to delete this entry was objective or unbiased.

It was decided over a year ago that Pardus was notable enough to remain in Wikipedia; since that time Pardus has only grown in both members and media coverage. I see absolutely no reason to delete this entry at this time. Utchka 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — Utchka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It would be better if you provided evidence of growing media coverage- Wikipedia is not static in its content or decisions. Also, try to assume good faith about TheSeer.-Wafulz 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link that shows increasing media coverage (look at dates, if you cannot read german, sorry) http://www.pardus.at/index.php?section=about_coverage. The most recent article from Telekommunikations & IT Report states the number of active users has tripled in the last year. Last year Pardus had about 5000 members, currently over 20,000 (this can be verified by emailing the developers). Also, I am not trying to attack TheSeer; I am only trying to state that I feel the suggestion to remove the entry was biased, and why I feel that way. My apologies if it appeared otherwise. Utchka

that link is from the Pardus site itself, which does not satisfy WP:V. You need to find an independant source to back up that assertion. -- Kesh 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's a list of sources. —Cryptic 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But we'd need to follow up and actually check each of those to make sure they're relevant to this article/discussion. Simply linking to the self-promotion page of the site does not itself satisfy WP:V. Nitpicky, I know, but I won't take the company's word for it that these are relevant quotations. Context can be very important. -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was nothing wrong with the first AfD, and the project has only increased in notability since. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE? THERE ARE NONE. Burntsauce 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing enough reliable sources to support an article. The German article comes closest, but probably isn't quite a reliable enough source for our purposes and isn't enough to support the whole article by itself anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game is popular enough, it got publicity in both print media and online magazines. The article mostly describes game mechanics which can be verified by the game's manual. All in all it seems NPOV and accurate. Would be able to say more if the prodder gave a reason for the deletion request. VikingCommand 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) — VikingCommand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

AFDs exist to build consensus on whether or not an article should be kept. They are not a vote. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, VikingCommand has just signed up today and has only edited three game related AFDs and Utchka signed up just after the article was deleted due to a prod by Icerainbow (talk · contribs). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been on wikipedia for years, but have been unwilling to use my old account lately due security reasons. I'd be happy to identify my 'main' wikipedia account to anyone interested, but privately. Utchka 07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just signed up or not, they have good points: the information can be verified by the game's manual, there are independant sources (as good as any other online game entry), it is noteable enough and it should stand as it did after the prod last year, for the same reasons.Sindrii 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Sindrii (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 speedied (G12). -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bradford

This and the related article Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development appear to be just advertising, but I want a second opinion on this. thisisace 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete - Clearly and ad/directory entry Djgranados 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does your 2nd bit mean please ? thisisace 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Travis Bradford per CSD G12 (blatant copyvio). Copied from [4]. ~~I'm off to check out the company article.~~Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development is not a copyvio. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:02, 6 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa)

Violate WP:NOTNEWS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am changing my vote to delete after reading wikipolicies on WP:NOT
- Comment - Then we should probably get rid of those subpages, too. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and we don't need to go into minor detail about every teacher ever arrested for a sex crime. FCYTravis 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article in question is a compendium of newspaper clippings, not an encyclopedia piece. FCYTravis 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." From WP:NOT Djgranados 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and horribly implications for WP:BLP.-- SiobhanHansa 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are also several similar lists: Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Florida), Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts), Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, ~~Roman Catholic sex abuse cases~~ and List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. Can these be added to this AfD at this stage or do we need to start another? -- SiobhanHansa 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably be on a second AfD, though grouped together. It's bad form to change AfD's while in progress. Quatloo 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SORMTRACKER94 and NASCAR Fan24. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am working on AfDs for a few of the articles mentioned by SiobhanHansa. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not encyclopedic. --Rtphokie 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably WP:BLP and most certainly WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK violations. 1of3 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much the same stuff as List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentjonathan states above that he is working on AfDs for a few of the articles listed in SiobhanHansa's comment above. I just checked his contributions list and the only ones he is proposing for deletion are the sex abuse cases in American Public Schools. Why wouldn't you or any of these other people opposed to the Public Schools list be working on AfDs for the Catholic Church list? I have provided evidence in the disputed article's introductory paragraph that the problem is just as bad or worse in American Public Schools, yet none of you sees any problem with eliminating just the wikipages on American Schools and not the Catholic Church? What does that say about the people commenting on this page? Bias? It looks that way to me.NancyHeise 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm working on AfDs for the two Catholic articles - but I don't intend posting them until Monday. -- SiobhanHansa 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article describes notable and referenced cases.Biophys 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Quatloo 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article has been anonymized.
The content addresses an issue whether abuse in education is underreported or reported correctly. There are a lot of adherents on both sides. It does not do original research however. All there is is the quantity or lack of same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a true example f an indiscriminate list, selecting a few cases for attention. I have no bias about it--I would eliminate all articles of this sort, as evasions of BLP and N. Articles about sex abuse in iowa schools would make sense if they talked about the legal and pubic opinion issues. DGG (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 22:12, 8 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. - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Griffin

Wikipedia chooses to delete articles that people enjoy to read and which are covering notable persons in the FOSS community, rather that consentating on more urgent tasts. Just goes to show that Wiki is not a serious alternative. It's a pitty.

Completing unfinished nom by User:Rtphokie, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We may have a COI here. But anyway, delete because it fails WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a lawyer with a podcast without sources fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 04:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think wiki pedia must keep this page. Chess is a most well-known Linux podcast producers. He was interviewed at the Ohio linuxfest by some people (something like the North Ohio open source society?) who also interviewed maddog Hall, Jeremy Garcia and other people. Many people know his podcast and he has helped thousands of new users. He also made some video tutorials for VTC company. maybe his page should be moved to Linux area of wiki pedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.181.78 (talk) This comment was added to the talk page of the article, where another copy of the incomplete nomination exists. GRBerry 14:08, 12 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 all articles deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Universe (fiction)

Non-notable. I searched for "Clockwork Universe" with "Adam J. Sims" and got no results except copies of this article.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all: No references or reliable sources. With that in mind, does not seem notable. - Rjd0060 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Rjd. Non-notable, may be a hoax. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - User:Abyssus.j appears to have created all the articles, and seems to be the adam claimed as the creator of the universe. All articles are merely fictional creations of said user.Djgranados 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I can find no other references for this usage --Rtphokie 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, there are no reliable third party sources to speak of. Burntsauce 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I have been chasing this one since May when I stumbled across it. I have yet to get an answer to m fundamental question "what is this?" It doesn't appear to be a hoax per se as there appear to be people working on it but whether they intend to ultimately make a comic, animation, game, etc. remains unanswered (and whether they even intend to - it could merely be some people getting together to make a fictional universe). Whatever it is it appears to fundmentally fail notability, so everything in Category:Clockwork Universe (Fiction) (and the category) should go. (Emperor 16:21, 10 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. --Aarktica 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic/Synergistic Expressionism

Non-existent art movement. Per WP:NEO and WP:OR: no GHITS as an art movement, no published sources. Freshacconci | Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources and seems to be original research. - Rjd0060 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above. JNW 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of neologisms. No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. STORMTRACKER 94 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Modernist 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody can come up with some references and maybe more than one artist said to be in this alleged genre then maybe it can stay. If not, delete. --DanielRigal 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The original editor of this article, DebrayR, attempted to introduce a source. Unfortunately, DebrayR repeatedly tried to delete the AfD tag and was blocked for his/her efforts. In my reverts of DebrayR's deletions, the source was left out (that wasn't my intention). In the end, however, it still seems to be an attempt at original research, as DebrayR is trying to establish notability for the movement and the artist in question Anatolii Ivanovich Sivkov by aligning the movement/artist with Hans Hofman (and I believe also de Kooning). Who knows, there may be some interesting connections there, but the source has nothing to do with Dynamic/Synergistic Expressionism or Anatolii Ivanovich Sivkov. As a curatorial text, that may be valid, but here it's original research. Here is the text that was listed: Costa, Xavier (2006). Hans Hofmann. the Chimbote Project: the Synergistic Promise of Modern Art and Urban Architecture. Actar/MACBA. ISBN 8495951738. Freshacconci | Talk 13:25, 9 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. WjBscribe 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narodni radio

I could not find any sources other then their own website. It is a single sentence long. -Icewedge 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be NN and no context. - Rjd0060 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A1 - no context. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the article itself being only a sentence long is no reason for deletion, this is not notable per the above link given. Ανέκδοτο 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was stubify and keep. GRBerry 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karlići

Article is not about the place Karlići, a village in Croatia. It very briefly presents a supposed apparition of the Virgin Mary in that village as if it is fact. No sources. Violates NPOV. Ward3001 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (no sources and POV). - Rjd0060 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom and my concerns on the talk page. That said, if there was in fact a well-publicized perceived manifestation, the page might be appropriate (although the current contents wouldn't be). Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No way to verify the article. No references either. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't this be re-written to be simply about the village? I.e., something along the lines "Karlići is a small village in Croatia, approximately 5 km outside Crikvenica. The Karlići Sanctuary (Svetište Karlići) is located there." There's no need to mention the apparition of the Virgin Mary (unless, of course, reliable sources can be found, such as news stories etc.) 131.111.8.98 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & stubify per 131.111.8.98. Previous discussion has concluded settlements are inherently notable, see WP:OUTCOMES. The lack of verification for the appearance of the Virgin Mary there (for which claim there may well be non-English media coverage) is not a reason to delete the factual information on the settlement. Espresso Addict 12:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In theory you may be right, but if you delete unverified information about the Virgin Mary, nothing is left, and empty articles are not acceptable. Keeping without deleting the information will not ensure that someone will fix it. Ward3001 16:18, 7 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. --Aarktica 09:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall (band)

This article was PROD'ed in the past, but it didnt get deleted (obviously). This is about a non-notable band. The one external link is titled "The only known place to find Downfall's music", which pretty much makes my case about this being a NN band. Rjd0060 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it has been tagged for references since January, and there have been none added. - Rjd0060 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the information in the article is true, which a quick gsearch suggests is the case, the subject passes WP:MUSIC criterion 6 for musicians and ensembles (band contained members of two notable bands - Operation Ivy and Rancid). The article needs refs, but that's a separate issue. Maybe putting the Unreferenced tag at the top of the article so people notice it would help.--Michig 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{unreferenced}}. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref and an external link, which will hopefully help in verifying the content of the article. --Michig 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's refs, band is notable for containing members of other notable bands. Tagged for additional refs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable but in desperate need of a stub tag. Not much there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It barely provides context, if any, and it's getting snowballed.

Bus route 7

This is not the only Bus route 7 in the world, in addition, it is not a notable bus route over the others Mhking 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN, that simple! - Rjd0060 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Can't see any reason why this is relevant. If people want this information they can go to a company web site. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:Notability. Besides, everyone knows the #7 bus goes to Dunbar <grin>. Accounting4Taste 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I'm out walking in Epping Forest and need to go to Chelmsford this might be useful but I don't think it's particularly notable to the rest of the world. Sam Blacketer 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, I can find plenty of other Bus Route 7s. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Hut 8.5 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There must be thousands of Bus route #7s and I doubt any of them, especially this one, are notable. RFerreira 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a timetable. Potentially useful != notable Bfigura ^(talk) 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory Djgranados 20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following should be nominated (and deleted) too: List of bus routes in Essex, Essex bus routes 1/1A, Essex Buses Route 240/250, London Buses route 498, Essex bus routes 521/522/523, Essex bus route 541, Essex bus routes 542/543, Essex bus route 804, Essex bus route H1. --Victor falk 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:28, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Autogyro

Non-notable fictional flying machine. I can't even verify this. Basil Richards 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverifiable NN fictional object. - Rjd0060 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly hoax, possibly OR, but violates WP:V. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Bearian 00:50, 12 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 no consensus. I am myself conflicted as to whether this article deserves inclusion. I would be inclined to say no, as none of the aircraft listed are in and of themselves notable, but I'll leave that discussion up to another AfD debate. No prejudice against a new AfD in the future. —Verrai 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines fleet

This has been covered and discussed on various avenues over months/years, including a previous Afd and once again it is being put up for WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N. The majority of the keep arguments in the last Afd were a combination of WP:LOSE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BHTT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ALLORNOTHING, whereas the delete were mainly based around WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N. The prose in the lead of this article is already in Singapore Airlines, as is the current and historical fleet (small tables). The last section is a WP:TRIVIA section, and the massive table is not encyclopaedic, against WP:NOT#INFO, and as notability is not inherited, it also fails WP:N, as the fleet is not notable without being related to the airline operating it. There is no merging to be done. One argument which may come up is that the main article is already long enough, although these main articles in a lot of places go against WP:ADVERT and against Airline Project guidelines. Russavia 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N, with very similar WP:ADVERT problems in main article:

Delete So what you're saying is that the "keep" arguments in the last nom was basically everything listed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? I'd have to say delete per nom, nothing more to be said here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to that the fact that an Encyclopedia doesn't explain every little tiny detail regarding that subject. Plus, some information is just useless and I don't see why anyone would want to use them. I supported a merge, however now I do agree, they should be deleted NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.--Golich17 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see the article describing variations in the length of wiring, the cabin air temperature, or the number of microbes in the carpeting in each aircraft, so just what "little tiny detail" is this article gulty of displaying? I have observed this article actually being used as a reference by users in two aviation forums when discussing fleet development and airframe movements between airlines (it is even a hobby for some to track who buys SIA's second hand aircraft). This list is not useless to them just because you arent interested.--Huaiwei 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Full details on past discussions can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Singapore_Airlines_fleet&oldid=38008579, which Russavia conveniently overwrote without adhering to proper nomination procedures. My past reasoning for keeping this article remains relevant. And to add to those comments, this article has evolved beyond merely a list of aircraft. It actually has the scope the discuss in greater detail much aspects of the SIA fleet. Arguments that "information here already exists in the main article" is only true because of my delibrate attempt in reproducing detail in both articles to ensure speedy portability to the other article as and when required (the information I recently added to the Singapore Airlines article can be moved over to this article when the former is deemed too large, which it already is anyway). It has to be reiterated that this is still primarily a helper article, not unlike all articles in Category:Airline destinations, Airline codes, etc. Normal criteria in deeming encyclopedic content should not apply to the last criterion here.--Huaiwei 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom... as unencyclopedic. Huaiwei, in agreement with NascarFan24, is simply trying to avoid the deletion of the article by elaborating himself very much so to the point where people believe that the information is useful, just because someone who wrote an extremely long explanation said so.--Golich17 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have voted twice. Kindly add additional comments to your original comment, and strike this one out.--Huaiwei 06:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please note that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that Afd is supposed to be decided upon policy and concensus, not on a list of votes. --Russavia 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, why is there a need to vote twice?--Huaiwei 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: Dublicate vote struck out.--Huaiwei 09:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Singapore Airlines#Fleet where the airline's fleet is already adequately covered. The thing we then "lose" will be the entire fleet list of individual aircraft, but that list is fairly dynamic, subject to change every time a lease expires, a nightmare to keep up to date (websites devoted to tracking individual aircraft in a fleet are unable to do keep them up to date, and have a "lag time"), and the registrations the planes fly around with has no great impact on the industry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fleet changes in this article has not been as dynamic as to actually pose problems for editors maintaining it. In fact, it has often been updated faster than the SIA website, so I don't see any problem of "lag time" here. Obviously registration numers of aircraft dont make a great impact in the industry, but no one is clamouring to write individual articles for each individual aircraft, or are we?--Huaiwei 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. --Huaiwei 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is interesting to note that several delete arguments are just as guilty as what was brought up by the nominator. Also, perhaps you may want to elaborate on why the article is not notable. I may want to note that these articles are lists, not full-fledged articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. --Huaiwei 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletions. --Huaiwei 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. --Russavia 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maintaining a list of each individual aircraft is not especially interesting to the general public, and there are specialist sites such as airlinerlist.com that already provide this information. I feel it is sufficient to give a summary of the fleet and this doesn't need its own article. American Airlines#Fleet looks about right to me. I don't think we should list individual tail numbers as seen on Singapore Airlines#Fleet--while it may work for relatively small airlines, we'd be left with an unreadable mess if we tried to enumerate all 299 MD-80s operated by American, for instance. -- Hawaiian717 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of WP articles are not interesting to the general public. See the articles on minor footballers and video games.Archtransit 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a few flawed arguments there, including the one Archtransit points out above. The existance of this one article dosent mean you have to have one for all airline articles in wikipedia. Some airlines are known to personalise each of their individual aircraft, for example Virgin Atlantic, so there is more notability in having an article on the Virgin Atlantic fleet than a British Airways one, despite the later being larger in size.--Huaiwei 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is potentially useful information if one wants to track a specific aircraft, e.g. date of service entry, etc. The article has potential to be improved to be more of an article and less of a list. For example, there's no discussion about how SQ was convinced to get rid of it's new A340 in favor of 777 even though both served similar tasks and most airlines don't replace aircraft like this (for example, replacing 737NG with A320 or vice versa). There's also the MD-11 saga that could be mentioned in the fleet article. Part of the decision depends on what we want Wikipedia to be. Should it be a general summary and leave out detailed information? WP:PRODUCT allows a separate article if the main article of a company is too long. The SQ article is long! Most importantly, WP:NNC dictates that an article should be kept if the TOPIC is suitable, not an indication of the contents of the article. The fleet appears to be suitable as an article (with improvement with more text added). As a result, I believe this is a keep. Archtransit 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have some good ideas for a fleet article and it's just not a list. I can see how people are opposed to this article if it's only a list. If this article remains, I'm happy to work on it. If the article is killed (votes are looking bad), why waste valuable time working on a dead article? Archtransit 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am actually considering splitting the article further down, such that the lists are moved to list articles, while the main Singapore Airlines fleet article becomes one which primarily discusses on the fleet itself, an expanded version of the Singapore Airlines#Fleet section. I would be curious to know what your proposed overhaul will look like, for we may be thinking of something similar.--Huaiwei 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NNC does not directly limit article content, however, WP:N itself does dictate whether the article itself is worthy for WP or not. Fleet lists of Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways International (remember, all 3 articles are included in this Afd) are not notable, as notability is not inherited. Additionally, I do not believe that article length of the main airline article can be a justifiable reason to keep any of these fleet articles, as the main airline articles are full of WP:CRUFT (codeshare destinations, flight numbers, extensive promo on FFP, and other advertisting), and I am not the only editor who has this opinion on these articles. --Russavia 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While informative, I'm not convinced that keeping tail numbers and dates of service for specific aircraft is encyclopedic. Keeping a summary table by aircraft type is clearly encyclopedic and those sections should remain in articles. They should be allowed to be split off if they become too large. This is an encyclopedia and there are sites whose sole purpose is to track the individual history of specific aircraft. I fail to see how spending our time duplicating dedicated databases query system results with manually updated information that is difficult to verify without using those databases is where we should be going. Discussions about specific business decisions can be included in the article. Vegaswikian 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment lists exist in wikipedia for a reason, and are not subjected to the same criteria in determining their encyclopedic merit. This list is not any less encyclopedic as Singapore Airlines destinations, the range of articles which you yourself have been struggling to maintain previously. If there is room for "specific business decisions" in this article, than you could have assisted to overhaul the article instead of supporting its outright deletion.--Huaiwei 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I believe Vegaswikian meant that discussions can occur in the main article? He can correct me if I am wrong, as that is how I read his comment. As to criteria in determining a lists encyclopaedic merit, WP:V is still a policy which even lists needs to adhere to, and this is one of the reasons why the 3 articles have been nominated, in that the fleets on their own to not satisfy WP:N or WP:V, due to the fact that the actual fleets have never been written about extensively by reliable sources without relying on their relationship with their companies, and as we know, notability is not inherited. --Russavia 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think I know perfectly what Vegaswikian meant, while I am having problems understanding what you are trying to say. You constantly cite WP:N and WP:V as reasons for deleting these articles, without actually saying why other than stuffing us with WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSA, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES, WP:USELESS, WP:NOTINTERESTING comments. Do you have any evidence that "actual fleets have never been written about extensively by reliable sources"? I have seen independent scholarly books on Singapore Airlines with an entire chapter dedicated to their fleets. There are endless independent articles out there discussing on aircraft fleets, purchases, and movements. Aircraft purchases frequently make headlines. Just about every aircraft purchase by SIA in its entire history has been reported in the local newspapers, and I believe this is also true for most major airlines around the world. I am again rather surprised that someone of your proclaimed exertise in the aviation field could make such a declaration at this time.--Huaiwei 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment That is not the way that Afds work Huaiwei, I have made a statement (whether that is right or wrong) that the fleets are not notable, and have based this statement on policy. It is your job as an editor (the main editor of the Singapore Airlines fleet I believe) to demonstrate notability by providing these reliable sources. If there are scholarly books which deal with this subject why aren't they cited in the main article, because the only sources referenced in the SIA article are 1 Singapore Airlines source, 2 aircraft manufacturer sources and 2 hobbyist sites (which whilst perhaps used within airline hobby circles would be pushing the envelope for being reliable sources), and even then none of the referenced sources are anything more than directory-type listings, which is perhaps against WP:NOT#DIR. --Russavia 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is not particular reason to delete this material. If it proves out that it is not kept up to date, that would be the time to AfD it. Other databases may come and go. Just as in the various rail, water transport, car, military aircraft, music, game, video, movie pages, there is *fan* interest in this kind of thing. It seems to me that there is a kind of risk of elitist POV in going after these classes of subject matter. In part WP is an encyclopedia of recreational and hobby interests. In this case there is overlap among various kinds of interest. In my past life I would have loved to have had access to a good discussion of the buying practices of SIA, Lufthansa, United, JAL, AAL, DAL and other airlines. If folks are willing to lovingly compile such info and put low-valued added fee-charging databases out of business, so be it. This is an article that could stand more depth, to be obtained from the large specialized periodical literature in this field. As to size of table display problems, having big tables may lead to more thought about HOW to present big tables. If there is to be some kind of WMF cost-reduction effort that should be made part of WP policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2007
Keep I couln't find any information in this article is not encyclopedic. There is no wrong putting this article here as it provides information on SIA aircraft details Marcusaffleck 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Archtransit. I agree with his view that a good amount of potential could be added to the article with tons of verifiable sources and make it much more encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 10 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. Carlossuarez46 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan "Panther" MacDonald

Going through the ELs, I couldn't find one independent source except for the Power of Polaroid article where he is mentioned in passing because his photo is in another artist's show. The band has yet to release a CD/album. I'm getting a distinct feeling of walled garden from the group and its members, but certainly very local notability. Pig^man 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, no non-trivial mentions in external sources. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:36, 6 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. WjBscribe 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Oceania

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. Refer to Talk:List of largest airlines in Oceania for examples of how some airlines are missing completely from this 'ranking', and as they are missing this fails WP:OR. Note also the figure for Qantas says 219 but the source (which I placed) says 129 (this is an ongoing dispute over at Qantas as to whether to place precendence on figures from company PR over independent regulatory authorities). This is one of a series of articles (see See also in the nominated article for more articles which are also in violation of WP:V and WP:OR) Russavia 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. How do we know they didn't pick numbers out of a hat? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Airlines in Oceania? Big Brother says that air travel is restricted until the war with Eastasia is won. This article is doubleplusungood. Mandsford 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~at least until the entire set of these articles is considered~~ This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. ~~Deleting the one article alone makes no sense.~~ If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is actually my intent to nominate List of largest airlines in Africa, List of largest airlines in Asia, List of largest airlines in Europe, and List of largest airlines in Central America & the Caribbean, as they are all WP:OR. I will not nominate List of largest airlines in North America as the rankings are quite clearly sourced to a reputable source. The other articles are the result of editors racking their brains and going thru a list of airlines and listing them. As per advice oft seen, I am nominating a single article to see the results before doing the others. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So should this article be deleted, are you also going to use WP:OTHERSTUFF to argue for the deletion of the remaining articles? You do not nominate the weakest article in a continous series just to test waters, and then use its outcome to determine your actions on the rest.--Huaiwei 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, I will nominate them on an individual basis, although they will use the same points. And of course you are able to nominate one article (to test the waters so to speak), see here quote However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. And yes, others have now been added to Afd. --Russavia 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If you notice my emphasise in my previous comment: You do not nominate the'weakest article in a continous series just to test waters, and then use its outcome to determine your actions on the rest. The suggestion above works best when you are debating the notability of one article's content, and its result automatically applies to similar contents in other articles. Here, you are nominating an article almost devoid of any referencing for deletion, so are you going to nominate the other similar articles in this series for the same thing, despite them having far better referencing? Please do not take instructions literally, and as valid excuses for being disruptive.--Huaiwei 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, Huaiwei, do you not about WP:CIVIL. I take extreme issue with your continual insinuation of myself being disruptive, and I would ask anyone reading to pass me on some advice on my talk page as to where I can take this, because the insinuations and insults by this user are getting way out of line. Secondly, there is no weakest article (in my opinion), as they are all (those nominated) as weak as one another due to all being in breach of WP:V and WP:OR. --Russavia 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that a statement like "Huaiwei, do you not [know] about WP:CIVIL." accounts to a breach of WP:CIVIL too. Instead of disgressing in a burst of emotive energy, please address the issues being brought up here. You still have not accounted for the fact that you are nominating articles which you are involved in past disputes over. You have not accounted for your failure to take action in closely related articles, even when they were dublicating information with the exact same problem of WP:OR (see [[5]]) If this article is not the weakest in your view, could you offer a better reason for nominating this article as a test bed?--Huaiwei 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is ridiculous. Firstly, you are reminded to assume good faith, by accusing me of being disruptive is not assuming good faith. Secondly, I have clearly declared my interest in this article. Thirdly, I don't need to take action in closely relation articles as every article in WP needs to stand on its own merits. Fourthly, an explanation needs to be provided as to how the rankings and fleet numbers have been obtained, as it needs be demonstrated that these articles are not original research. --Russavia 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You only have to assume good faith as long as good faith remains evident. If an editor persists in making bad faith or POV edits (or frivolous AfD nominations) then it is perfectly acceptable to suspend the assumption of good faith. I am not saying that this is the case here, but you cannot counter those who disagree with you by saying that they have to assume you are acting in good faith. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This nomination seems absurd, considering there is an entire series of continental articles in Category:Aviation statistics. If anyone bothers to see the edit history, the existing content here were actually ported over from World's largest airlines, when I attempted to reduce the size of that article (but which is currently in limbo because of one opposing editor). From the nomination, I wonder if Russavia is having issues with this article alone, or he actually has an issue with the definition of Qantas. It has to be pointed out that Russavia is an involved party in that unresolved dispute, and has been involved in several revert wars as a result, both in this article, in the Qantas article, and in the World's largest airlines article. When one observes the edit history of this article, I note he nominated this article a few days after someone reverts his preferred version. The AFD should not be used as a disruptive means of resolving a content dispute.--Huaiwei 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it is a result of it being unsourced, and unverifiable. Explanations need to be provided as to how the rankings were obtained, because it is clearly in violation of WP:OR the way it stands at the moment, as are the other articles referenced above. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if being unsourced, and unverifiable is your sole primary concern, can you explain your failure to nominate all other articles in this series with the same problem? Can you explain why you did not intervene and remove unsourced information in the original World's largest airlines article, where the exact same information was derived from? Why do you only take action now, in the midst of being personally involved in a revert war in the said article?--Huaiwei 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't believe I am required to nominate any other articles, as this would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument, every article needs to stand on its own merits, and the onus is on others (as far as I am aware) to refute the nomination. --Russavia 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Why should it concern you that mass nomination of those related articles may be considered a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when WP:V and WP:OR is your primary concern? Further more, individual nomination of those articles is precisely to allow each article to stand on their own merits. Why didnt you nominate all of them individually then? No one categorically states that such a requirent exists. What remains to be answered, is your reasoning behind your actions, which is to nominate just one article, an article you were having a content dispute over.--Huaiwei 08:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this list is an expansion of a larger list, and shouldn't be deleted unless the whole list to which it belongs is deleted. Deleting part of a list makes no sense, and just cripples the list. The Transhumanist 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no room for WP:OR in WP, and this list is an example of that. Regardless of whether it is part of a larger list or not is neither here nor there, it fails WP:V and WP:OR, and that alone is grounds enough to remove. Particularly as there has been no attempt to reference it since I posted this back in August. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given your expertise on the subject, I am surprised that you have not made an attempt to reference it. I wonder why that is? The information is out there and easily found. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Trust me, I have. I can find no rankings on the net, now I am sure that they may exist in some industry journal somewhere, but no in any journals I have access to unfortunately. --Russavia 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refs don't have to be on the net. You can reference a printed journal if you can find one, it's authoritative, and there are no other sources. In any event, all the information required can be found here. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, that website is not a reliable source, as it is too restrictive in what it includes. Example, from the talk page of this article actually, their page for Airlines PNG, lists a total of 5 aircraft. Another unreliable source is [6] as again it is too restrictive. The airline website lists 17 aircraft, the WP article lists 12 aircraft, the 2006 JP Airline Fleets lists 15 aircraft. Which source do you use? No matter which one you use, it is going to original research, what is needed is an authoritative source listings ranking these airlines themselves, rather than having WP editors doing WP:OR to compile hopelessly incorrect lists which omit information, misinterpret information, etc, etc. --Russavia 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And WP:V clearly states that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Incorrect lists based on verifiable sources simply dosent constitute WP:OR. That there are unreliable sources out there isnt our concern either, if they are not used as sources here. Other similar articles overwelmingly use official airline websites as their sources of data, or media sources at the bare minimum. The problems you cite are not relevant to this article, or any of those related articles.--Huaiwei 10:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. original research would be if you went out and counted the planes in the fleets yourself, and built a list around that. The fact that there may be conflicting sources does not negate the article itself. Either find a consensus around the source that is considered the most authoritative, or state that there is conflicting information. Just because you don't like a particular source for whatever reason is no reason not to use it if it is the best that can be found. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original research can also be creating an article named List of largest airlines in Oceania and basing the contents on the list purely on picking airline names out of a hat and checking websites, and then ordering them from 1 to whatever, without referencing an authoritative source on what actually are the largest airlines of Oceania. --Russavia 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that has not been done, what is the most constructive approach? Delete the article, or find the sources that even you admit are out there to back up the article? It is an undeniable fact that there are airlines in Oceania. It is also an undeniable fact that some have larger fleets than others, and that one airline will have the biggest fleet, another the second biggest etc. That information can be found, and a listing of airlines by fleet size is useful. But it is no more original research than say the article on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann which is similarly put together from various sources to make a convincing whole. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response The most constructive approach is to delete the article as failing WP:V and WP:OR. IF a reliable source can be found which establishes a list of largest airlines in Oceania without having to resort to original research, then by all means add the article again. Additionally, refer to WP:V#_note-2, which references an email from Jimbo with a subject Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Read that, and read it again in conjunction with WP:V, WP:OR, and to some extent WP:NPOV, and you can plainly see why these articles must go until such time as they can comply with these policies. --Russavia 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Russavia, you are simply getting desperate to justify AfD nominations that are clearly without merit. The lacking information you are so worried about is easily found. If we want to debate the validity of various sources we can do that, but please, you are not the final arbiter of what is and is not a reliable source. By your criteria, any article where there is a dispute on facts would be deleted. That's a lot of articles. The stats are out there. It should be easy for someone with your knowledge of the aviation industry to find them and add them to the article, right? So do that yourself and improve Wikipedia, rather than seeking to delete potentially useful articles. A article does not have to be compiled from a single source, as has been demonstrated to you. You are not seeking the deletion of the World's Largest Airlines article even though it is compiled in exactly the same way. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting desparate at all, as the point has been clearly made with the Afd nomination, and there has yet to be any rebuttal to the assertion that the list is original research. It seems that people need to really look at WP:FIVE, as you have just used from WP:ATA a combination of - WP:LOSE, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:USEFUL, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:PROBLEM, without providing a clear explanation as to why it should be kept inline with WP:V and WP:OR. And, I will say yet again, I have not nominated List of largest airlines, as the rankings and figures are referenced to reliable sources, and anyway, your assetion is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. --Russavia 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be greatly amused if even at this juncture, Russavia could still go about proclaiming that no one has rebutted his salient point. I would just like to reiterate to him, that there is a key difference between disagreeing with comments and no comments at all. I believe it is an important virtue in wikipedia to give due respect to those who hold different opinions, before expecting the same from others. Also, I am personally getting a tad tired by this increasingly nasty habit of citing a long string of policies, guidelines and essays, failing to understand key differences between them, and jumbling all of them together to build up justification in taking a certain action, especially when he fails to convince the masses. I wonder if Russavia has heard of WP:IGNORE?--Huaiwei 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a lot of polemic over this series of articles, and it is obvious that the protagonists have strong views about these (and other aviation-related) article. Keep is the best outcome in these circumstances until the underlying issues can be resolved. Or at the very least, the information it contains should be merged into the main World's Largest Airlines article. Remember WP:OWN. No one owns these articles, and no one editor, no matter their expertise in the area, can be the final arbiter of what is and is not appropriate. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Russavia has nominated List of largest airlines in Africa for deletion, moments after I questioned him for being selective in his nomination process. Once again, he appears to have chosen to nominate weaker articles, instead of nominating the entire series collectively.--Huaiwei 02:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Russavia has nominated List of largest airlines in Asia for deletion. I hope the rest of the articles will be following up soon.--Huaiwei 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Russavia has nominated List of largest airlines in Europe for deletion. Is South America next?--Huaiwei 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Russavia I am not sure why you are after everyone but if you don't like the fact that we are right you go and change it and if that doesn't work you attempt to delete it.It is completely obscured the fact he wants to delete good pages.Which I might add have references.Sparrowman980 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, it should be noted that Sparrowman is the editor with whom I have had a dispute with on this article. Secondly, it should also be noted that the article as it stands as I write this is now completely unreferenced, as the source given to push the POV of Qantas having 219 aircraft is the source that I provided for 129 aircraft, and that reference is still in the article, thereby it fails verification. Thirdly, the source that this editor wants to use is Qantas PR marketing [7] (which by the way states 213) (they can't even get that number correct!). Fourthly, by allowing that source to stay in this original research article demonstrates precisely why it is original research, as Jetstar which is No.4 on this list, is included in the figures for Qantas which is No.1. It can't be both! --Russavia 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I suspected, the AfD nom is the result of a personal disagreement of one editor with another. As such, the article should stand until the issue can be worked out. Interestingly enough, the source that I suggested, Air Fleet, backs up the claim of 129 aircraft in the QANTAS mainline fleet, but the nominator wants to dismiss that source! This is simply getting silly. Once this AfD is over, we can discuss what are appropriate sources and how to handle things like groups. Then we can find reliable sources, even if they are different ones for each entry, to support the article. But all this talk of "original research" is patent nonsense. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can it be nonsense? Have a look at the article as of 13 July 2007, with an entry for Tiger Airways Australia, a company which at that time did not have an AOC, and hadn't even received its first aircraft. Or how about this? This is what the article looked like from the start. Go thru the diffs and see how funny it is; at the beginning of the article you have Aeropelican with 5. On 11 July, Aeropelican is pushed from the list. Tiger Airways makes an appearance on 13 July with 5. Two months go by and the article gets its first reference, which is then duly reverted back to an unreferenced article. On the same day, the Norfolk Air fleet drops from 10 down to 1, a little revert war with Sparrowman ensues (shameful I know), another editor then changes the Qantas figure to 136 (using main Qantas article as a reference I think I remember), which I then change to 129 to match the referenced source, which is reverted some days later to show 213 (but still with source which states 129). I thought of reverting this information once again, but then I got to thinking, I add an OR tag on 5 September (which was removed), and then it hit me, where is Aeropelican? Norfolk takes out the No.10 spot with 1 aircraft (a rank it still holds to this day according to the article), but Aeropelican is nowhere to be seen. Instead of reverting and getting into a revert war, I nominated it for Afd for the reasons stated a dozen times above; there is no point in getting into a revert war when two major policies are not being followed within the article since creation. Now I will totally misinterpret something to argue for deletion, that being WP:PROBLEM, and the word that stands out there is embarrasment As to the source, Air Fleet, you will have noticed the restrictions that they have in the size of the aircraft that they include in their census, and it so happens that Qantas operates a fleet of aircraft which that site covers, however, for a region such as Oceania with many third-level and small island hopper airlines, Air Fleets would be pointless as using as a reliable source for airlines such as that which I used as an example. And I will also use WP:PROBLEM again, in that the article is not encyclopaedic as it stands, and it won't until such time as a reliable source is used to formulate the 'largest' lists. If you have US$1000 spare, feel free to purchase this and compile the list, however, be careful, as whilst published data can't be copyrighted, the way it is presented can be, which could create a completely different problem --Russavia 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the fear of embarrasment such a critical concern to you, Russavia, for you to highlight it in such a manner in your latest comment?--Huaiwei 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bingo, Harry was a white dog with black spots. Your suspicion mirrors mine exactly. Note a very recent comment Russavia inserted in his latest reversion of Sparrowman980's edit about seven hours ago:

“

The official Aust. aircraft register has Qantas as having 129 aircraft, 1 editor wants to use Qantas PR marketing materials, now this article is an absolute joke - fails verification.^[1]

”

I think his own comment reveals plenty on just what is really happening here.--Huaiwei 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's certainly an encyclopedic list. The content is all verifiable. Just because a list is not complete (some airlines are apparently missing) doesn't mean it should be deleted, but expanded. It's almost like the nom is using a WP:BLP argument to delete this. --Oakshade 00:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an article for List of airlines in Oceania but List of largest airlines in Oceania. If it were the former, then yes, what you say is correct, but due to it being the latter, this is by no means verifiable as there are no third party, reliable, verifiable sources which indicate that this editor-compiled list of largest airlines in Oceania is the way it is in reality. --Russavia 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Russavia the arguement of Worlds Largest Airlines and Qantas goes truly far back with me starting with Huaiwei then with RG2 but when i was wrong i would stand back and allow them to make the changes.Now I have provided the proof and you continue to deny that it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowman980 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have take the time to go around the web looking for the refrences and found all for them so now they are all there. --Sparrowman980 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this as i have done the work to fix this page.Sparrowman980 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Built to Serve

Advert for a recently published book. Article written by a single-purpose account. -- RHaworth 17:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, and failing that, WP:V --Russavia 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article is written to provide information to anyone who wants to know about the book (see any Harry Potter entry) It's not intended to sell the book. Andyhartman 13:28, 7 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: I moved this over to WP:RFD. The discussion can be picked up here. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me

The article it's redirecting to has been re-written (by me), and no longer contains an entry for this client command. M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless redirect, then. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can't this be speedy deleted under housekeeping (G6)? If not, delete per nom. --Russavia 17:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... It could go under cleaning up redirects. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to MFD Will ^(talk) 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why doesn't the article include /em - /me? - Che Nuevara 20:40, 6 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booting (chat room slang)

Unsourced jargon definition. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:RS. M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:DICDEF. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference If I heard of it, it cant be that new, and must be widespread, let people find references, and flag it as unreferenced. The article is beyond a dicdef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refereence What he said; it's definitely more than a dicdef. Noel (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might indeed not be notable; I'm not taking a position on that. Noel (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang guide, with exception to List of professional wrestling slang, which we do allow for some inexplicable reason. RFerreira 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference It is obvious there is more to it than a dicdef if you read it. Tim Q. Wells 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't a dicdef, so it survives that. However, it isn't notable as of now. So delete. i ^said 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:IHEARDOFIT but it still isn't notable, and Wikipedia is not an on-line slang resource. Burntsauce 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Spacepotato 19:44, 8 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

Yeouch! This article is nothing more than a POV fork largely created by a single user through original research so that he then can cite to this Wikipedia article in a personal letter writing campaign to Royal Dutch Shell. Among the many policies this violates, *** Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, *** Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and *** Wikipedia is not a battleground *** come to mind. By adhering to the GA requirement that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and the requirement that only material that is independent of the subject be used in an article, this topic could be covered adequately within the Royal Dutch Shell article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are aware that we have mechanisms for a proposed merge beyond *fD, right? Is the nom actually calling for deletion? Also, doesn't half of the nom basically negate WP:SPLIT? OR should be removed, but most of the article is well sourced. If you'd prefer they be so tightly focused in pursuit of GA status, then split the events into other articles (lord knows it's well past what's called for by WP:LENGTH, and always has been) and/or merge the strongly sourced points to the (already large) parent article. AfD seems like an odd place to bring this up. MrZaius^talk 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:BATTLE. STORMTRACKER 94 17:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR does not apply to vast tracts of this very long article, and many individual incidents documented in the article carry no POV concerns, covering, as they do, only well-known issues that are thouroughly documented by reliable, verifiable sources. Please be more specific and explain how deletion is preferable to a cleanup and/or split. MrZaius^talk 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stormtracker94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the most controversial companies in the world. The reasons for that require more space than they could be afforded in the parent article. Many users have contributed here. Donovan's editing is transparent as he edits under his own name. In the email, he's not pretending the information is independent of him. Lapsed Pacifist 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutrality problems can be fixed. Article is sourced, and a natural spinoff from parent article. Mandsford 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article problems can be fixed; POV deletions are more difficult to deal with and they disrupt the work of WP editors. Having 'controversy' articles regarding problems that corporate/other entities have gotten themselves into is a good way to split up articles that are otherwise too long Hmains 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues of neutrality and OR can be fixed — enough reliable sources exist to write a neutral and balanced article, and content forking is justified on the basis of (i) the sheer size and historical importance of Shell and (ii) the fact that these controversies are independently notable. We don't delete sourced material on notable controversies simply because a company generates so much controversy; "excessive detail" should only be invoked to trim insignificant detail, which this is not. Thomjakobsen 01:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - In regards to the keep remarks made above, the handful of editors who have made edits to a topic supposedly about 'one of the most controversial companies in the world,' only one editor has more than 25 edits to the article. Johnadonovan has made 198 edits to the article. The next highest number of edits is 22, then 17, then 5, then 4, 3, 2, and mostly 1. See Wikipedia stats. More space is used than needed because of the failure to only use and cite to independent, third party reliable source material and the failure to stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. The article largely does not cite sources nor could it since most of the material added is original research. Disliking Royal Dutch Shell is not a basis to throw out Wikipedia's standards to allow a free-for-all disparagement of Royal Dutch Shell. This POV fork needs to be deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the point made above concerning the large sections that discuss specific events and controversies that would plainly meet WP:NOTE if forked off. I've only ever performed the most cosmetic of cleanups on this article, and am not terribly interested in the subject matter, but I can still see some value in covering those events that plainly meet WP:NOTE. The OR that you mention should be removed. Again, seems more like grounds for cleanup than deletion. MrZaius^talk 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The fact that one editor has (allegedly) made a large number of bad edits is not a deletion argument. Additionally, much of it does seem sourced, although it's been done as external links inserted directly into the text rather than proper inline cites. More of a style issue though. Thomjakobsen 20:19, 8 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. Carlossuarez46 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Denizens

Article on a non-notable webcomic. The only references are self-references and a forum post (failing WP:RS); this article is little more than a list of characters. Being hosted on Keenspot shouldn't trump WP:OR, WP:RS, and shouldn't automatically confer notability.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Brianlucas 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 8 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 no consensus. — madman bum and angel 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Le Brocq

Serious WP:BLP violation for naming his underage student, Karl D., with whom he was in a sexual relationship. The BLP policy states: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.... When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." There are several sources, but each one of them is just a news report. 1of3 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme WP:BLP prejudice, as nom. 1of3 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. I completely agree with everyone above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:BLP and probably WP:NOT#NEWS as well - this person has little long-term notability. Hut 8.5 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this falls under WP:BLP1E. A biography should not become a WP:COATRACK for one event. And since he's NN outside of this one event, we can and should delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN Djgranados 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Egregious misuse of Wikipedia policy to protect living persons. The boy involved in this matter, Karl Donaldson, has gone public with his story, as has his mother. As a matter of fact, a picture of Karl and his mother is available to all on the Daily Mail site here. So who exactly is being protected??? This case was widely reported on in the UK and there are NO privacy issues involved, except to those who have not familiarized themselves with this topic. Haiduc 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Donaldson has indeed allowed his photo to be published in the paper, and his mother gave interviews to the press. Further, the sexual aspect of the relationship didn't occur until after Donaldson was of legal age, if the Sun article is correct and Donaldson isn't lying. The only aspect that troubles me is the article's statement that Donaldson wants to forget this episode. Putting aside all his inane chatter to the media, we here at Wikipedia are forced to assume good faith about his assertion and presumably coddle him, since he is ostensibly the "victim" in this escapade. Is it not possible to just link to the article without naming this now legal Lolito? Jeffpw 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not our place to read things in Donaldson's statements, nor to fulfill wishes. The boy and his mother freely and openly gave interviews about an event that was ultimately unpleasant to them. But that is a very different matter from wanting to keep things quiet. Had they wanted that, they would not have gone on the media trail. Even the article in the American magazine The Advocate states that "The student, Karl Donaldson, now 19, revealed his identity to the press and in court." When information is widely disseminated (on at least three continents in this case) and the young man (now 19) has freely come out to the media, even releasing pictures of himself, there can no longer be any question of protecting anyone, since the person most in need of protection has shown he does not need or want it. What are we, Big Brother, to over-rule his wishes and his actions? Haiduc 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Haiduc that this is at best a misunderstanding of the BLP policy. Donaldson gave interviews about this to the national press. There are no privacy issues here. Nick mallory 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haiduc. This is a slight, but completely understandable, miseuse of the WP:BLP policy. RFerreira 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this different from the recent precedent of Allison Stokke who also gave interviews to the press and then we deleted her article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke for WP:BLP reasons (some of the several times it was deleted? Edison 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In her case, the pictures were taken without her knowledge, or they were posted without her knowledge, resulting in her unwanted notoriety. In this case the statements, and the pictures, were freely contributed, and the expressed unhappiness is with his lover, not the media - not that it matters from the point of view of compiling a record of history. In any case, the current situation must be judged on its own merits, not on dubious parallels with a contentious matter. Haiduc 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haiduc. The student himself admitted the affair in The Advocate. Keep this in mind when reviewing the previous "Delete" votes. - Cyborg Ninja 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it reveals the name of the boy; we've established that the boy has done public interviews himself. But because this person appears to only be notable for this one incident. Will he still be notable in ten years? Has he done anything noteworthy besides sleeping with one of his students? WP:BLP says "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." I think this is one of those situations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mary Kay Letourneau, anyone? Think about it. Wikipedia, quite understandably so, has thousands of articles on criminals that were given widespread media attention. I strongly believe that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" refers to news that is minor, not something of this notoriety. The subject himself will continue to bring attention to the subject of student-teacher relations and pedophilia for years to come. - Cyborg Ninja 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I respect your point of view (and I can see that mine is the minority opinion), but I have to point out that this person has not, thus far, been the subject of a book or any made-for-TV movies. Letourneau has gotten a great deal more media coverage than Le Brocq, at this point. Counting google hits is not usually a valid argument, but my search shows about 79,000 hits for Letourneau and 269 for Le Brocq. If we decide that Le Brocq meets WP:BIO, I accept that, but I don't think the comparison with Letourneau is quite apt. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Letourneau's article is replete with third-party comentary and analysis. Le Brocq's is just based on news reports. 1of3 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-note - Letourneau has also had many more years to gather steam.But this event falls right in the middle of an important cultural controversy, proved by its newsworthiness and coverage on three continents. Haiduc 00:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A future-tense notability claim is a striking innovation. I think I'll try the same thing with my band's Myspace page! (Letorneau is one of a handful of female teachers who were convicted of similar crimes at about the same time a few years ago and won notoriety on the TV news. She is for whatever reason the only one of the group who has maintained name recognition. I don't think there's any way to guess whether Brocq will share her "luck" in this.) Dybryd 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Bfigura and FisherQueen: WP:NOT#NEWS, no encyclopedic value. Pete.Hurd 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haiduc DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If in a year or so the incident turns out to be a lasting reference point or to have achieved cultural significance, then someone can add it back. Otherwise it's a fleeting news story du jour like, no doubt, scores of other minor sex scandals. --lquilter 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. Maybe Wikinews? Rklawton 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cyborg Ninja. Callelinea 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Wikipedist 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Haiduc. Tim Q. Wells 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Haiduc. --profg ^Talk 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Severe BLP violation. WP:NOT etc. Hell I'd support a speedy of this. It doesn't claim allegations, it flat out states that the guy had a homosexual affair. That's a huge BLP issue ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You would benefit from reading the sources, in which the boy and his mother freely and openly discuss the love affair and sexual relationship between himself and his teacher, affair which was conducted with the consent of the boy and the mother, according to the judge presiding at the trial. Haiduc 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a question of BLP, but there's no notability here. The tabloid Daily Mail gives wide publicity to several sex-n-crime scandals a week. Where are our articles on Christopher Allison, Shaun Farrell, Shellagh Davies, and their many, many cohorts? Where they are is in Wikinews for the duration of their notoriety, and nowhere after that.

"I say, Charles, don't you ever crave..." Dybryd 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Advocate and several of the other sources are eminently WP:RS. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of reliability. I'm sure it's absolutely true that David really was having secret sex with both Tracy and Karl while Karl was a student in Tracy's drama class, but that neither Tracy nor Karl knew of David's clandestine erotic involvement with the other until Tracy had David's illegitimate baby! And then Karl's sister told someone who told someone who told Tracy who had David arrested in a jealous rage!

I just don't think it's very important that it's true.

By the way everyone, this AfD inspired me to go nominate a whole bunch of other scandalous but banal sex offenders for deletion, so all of you folks who think that Wikipedia ought to function as the archive for Wikinews may want to swing by and vote keep on all of those. Dybryd 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bunch of other articles nominated for deletion by user:Dybryd are Karen Louise Ellis, Bridget Mary Nolan, Pamela Rogers Turner, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Debra Lafave, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., William Chandler Shrubsall and Toby Studebaker. Alfons Åberg 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Haiduc. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BALCO KEEP, the strongest keep possible. There is no WP:BLP related problem here, and to cite it as a reason for deletion borders on misuse of policy. Burntsauce 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't cite WP:BLP. I cited WP:BIO; and clearly said that I didn't see a BLP problem here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for you to reply, as my comment was not directed toward you. Thank you though for your clarification. (BALCO thanks, the strongest thanks possible.) Burntsauce 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the younger partner came forward in The Advocate, it makes absolutely no sense to try and protect the guy by removing that information here. The boy and his mother freely and openly discuss the love affair and sexual relationship between himself and his teacher, that kills any potential claim of BLP as they WANT the information public. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's an argument for long-termm notability of this particular case. I know we don't delete just based on article content, but a discussion of how many times a day they had sex is not exactly encyclopedic. The discussion above about the particulars of the affair only echos this. Consensual sex, even with a teacher, is not necessarily notable. 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, according to the following text on the WP:BLP page, When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced appears to confirm the legitimacy of having articles for persons known only for only one event. Le Broq would seem to fit in that category, would he not? Haiduc 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

Haiduc, you quote WP:BLP, but have somehow missed the relevant section of that page. For convenience, here it is in full:

“

Articles about living people notable only for one event

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

”

Off I go to put this paragraph in my other AfDs!

Dybryd 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:IGNORE stating, The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So I'm ignoring WP:BLP and WP:whatever else you got to try and delete this article. He's notable, the minor went public, it was a significant event, end of story. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as you can see from above discussion, notability is not at all a given in this case. --lquilter 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope that you are not reaching for some kind of absolute truth here. Notability is not a black and white matter. While he will never be as notable as Napoleon he nevertheless became the focus of widespread and international attention over the course of his public life, as can be seen from the numerous articles on this affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiduc (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, an encyclopedia does not cover every scandal that gets its 15 minutes of tabloid publicity. Sandstein 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Sandstein 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. numerous references have been cited and simply need to be integrated into text. Benjiboi 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lquilter, recreate if story attains more significance. Eliminate tabloid details in any event. Hal peridol 02:51, 13 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. GRBerry 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Combat

There seems to be nothing notable about this mod. This article is essentially the manual for the mod, and the 'history' information is not reliably verifiable. I can't see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Che Nuevara 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a manual or a how-to guide. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, and inappropriate. /Blaxthos 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 17:24, 6 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 C. Peter Wagner. WjBscribe 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wagners paradigm

Non notable religious teaching. The article's claims to notability come primarily from Google searches which return about 25 hits. eaolson 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some clean up needed, but he is a notable evangelist.JJJ999 23:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Google shows 9 hits total for Wagner's paradigm, only 1 referring to this [8] There is one more under "wagners paradigm" Two relevant ghits is not notability,and there's no other indication of any. The connection with the composer in the article seem merely a confusion. DGG (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to C. Peter Wagner. He may be notable, but I can't find any consistent definition of his "paradigm" -- he seems to use that word a lot, in a lot of different contexts. The first eight Google hits for his name +paradigm give eight different contexts, as I read it. If by some chance this gets kept, at least please someone move it to "Wagner's paradigm" WITH the apostrophe. Accounting4Taste 00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Push again for keep, some more people need to vote however...JJJ999 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- can't see what the fuss is about, it's obviously real, can't a few people clean it up, or something? why wasn't this tagged first, why did it go straight to an AfD? Recommend improving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to keep, obviously no consensus for removing, it should rather be cleaned up as suggested and given more references and discussion, which I'm happy to do. Reasons for deletion are not convincing, and this was not tagged for refs before as noted.JJJ999 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that JJJ999, who has suggested three times above that this article be kept, is its creator. Accounting4Taste 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was clear...JJJ999 00:38, 5 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this information is already replicated in Wagner's article. It would seem this is a nonissue. Redirect. - Che Nuevara 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C. Peter Wagner per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; any further discussion of its suitability for inclusion can be on that article's talk page. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per Iain99. /Blaxthos 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per DGG. STORMTRACKER 94 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already mentioned in subject's article. Vote early and vote often! --Sc straker 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 20:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' There is some interesting information here, it should be moved to a section within C. Peter Wagner--Rtphokie 22:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C. Peter Wagner - this article merely duplicates material that already appears in the article on C. Peter Wagner. There is no substantial reason for such duplication. If the article had some substantial discussion of the paradigm, there might be a case for the article, but until that is provided, the biographic article is adequate. Peterkingiron 15:54, 7 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 fluush. DS 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoosh

First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability for this or any other game called whoosh. No sources to back up the "history". Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Wikipedia is not a place to put that thing you just thought up whilst bored at school. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nascarfan. /Blaxthos 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NASCAR Fan24. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NFT. STORMTRACKER 94 17:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nascarfan. --Sc straker 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Hut 8.5 19:46, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XMax TX-110

A new mobile phone handset. Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G11 as advertising. It was in the category of speedy deletion candidates for many hours but no admin (myself included) felt willing to go through with it. I have refused the speedy and taken it to AfD. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Reads like an advert. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not like green eggs & spam. /Blaxthos 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD G11, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam and crystal ball. --Sc straker 17:32, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Y Camps

Fails to assert notability. I am also nominating

(an apparently related article) for the same reason. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text of Cedar Lake Camp is included in New Jersey Y Camps. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both - Per nom. (No assertion of notability). - Rjd0060 02:03, 1 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 16:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a bit of notability. STORMTRACKER 94 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is notability in this article, it is a common summer camp in New Jersey. Empire2000 02:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is extremely localised if any. --Sc straker 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Non-notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:11, 6 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 NaNoWriMo. Espresso Addict 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NaNoEdMo

I nominated this article for deletion based on notability criteria.

If the uncited information in the article is accurate, an event with only 1,000 participants, that has no official sponsor, that has only existed for 3 years and that has had a its web site go dead, does not meet Wikipedia notability requriements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: NN and no outside sources. - Rjd0060 14:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It already has a mention in NaNoWriMo, which is about as much, as a completely non-official spinoff, it needs. - Che Nuevara 15:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NaNoWriMo. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Sc straker 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: because it it not officially related, I am opposed to the 'redirect' to NaNoWriMo option. I believe delete is better or perhaps redirect to List_of_timed_artistic_contests . 207.69.137.29 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not officially affiliated, but it's clearly a spin-off and closely related. NaNoEdMo is an unofficial extension of NaNoWriMo. - Che Nuevara 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems about as "clearly realted" as if an article about my son's flag football team were re-directed to the article about the NFL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I imagine you haven't spent much time on the NaNoWriMo forums. How much time do NFL officials and the NFL website spend talking about your son's football team? Very little, I would imagine. But NaNoEdMo is very often a staple of discussion at NaNoWriMo.org. - Che Nuevara 17:10, 8 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 garbage. DS 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yerrinull Kaiks

Obvious blatant hoax--name is intended as a homonym of "urinal cakes"--yet both G1 and A7 speedies were denied. --Finngall ^talk 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It wasn't denied g1, but I removed it because it is not technically "nonsense" however I reapplied a7 but that was denied for some odd reason. Obvious hoax and apparently the denying admin didn't read the name of the so-called "village". - Rjd0060 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, A7 is supposed to be for articles about "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", and claiming to be a real place could be regarded as an assertion of notability. Hut 8.5 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. I've tagged it now. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, can't get a single hit on five search engines. Hut 8.5 19:57, 6 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 redirected to 2007_American_League_Division_Series#Game_2.2C_October_5_2 by User:UsaSatsui. Whilst his edit summary said he was leaving the AfD open, the consensus this far reeks of snowballs. As for the redirect, that's probably best for WP:RFD to decide. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ALDS bug incident

I may be wrong but I don't think this incident is really notable for an individual article even though it may have an effect on the series. I would mostly suggest maybe a merge with 2007 American League Division Series but otherwise Delete per nn nature of the incident not to mention there no links and sources for that. JForget 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So what? Some bugs decided to fly around Jacobs Field. Perhaps merge into 2007 ALDS but otherwise doesn't really deserve an article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or Merge if somebody wants to. It isn't really notable, but I see no harm in including it in 2007 American League Division Series. - Rjd0060 14:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the daily news. Should be mentioned in the ALDS article. Actually, I think I'm gonna merge and redirect it. --UsaSatsui 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --UsaSatsui 16:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 ALDS. STORMTRACKER 94 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007_American_League_Division_Series#Game_2.2C_October_5_2. CyberTootie 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The article is currently a redirect, and the redirect isn't particularly useful. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all delete recommendations above. (I have no objection to including the information in the 2007 American League Division Series article, though.) --Metropolitan90 00:46, 7 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. DS 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic abstraction layer

Neologism. Cannot find Google references, even one's related to the claimed Coiner of the term. OAL is a Hardware Abstraction (purely technical) in Windows CE that has absolutely no relation. Jimmi Hugh 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of neologisms. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has a hoax-y sound to it. The author is taking HAL and replacing key concepts, trying to present a technology which appears to be non-existent (text from the art, "Currently OALs are most commonly implemented via silicon-neuron interconnects", tagged with "references needed"). Compare the text of this article to the text at Hardware abstraction layer. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as hoax. I agree with you. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. - Rjd0060 14:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax. /Blaxthos 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NEO. STORMTRACKER 94 17:38, 6 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 all. Consensus is that none of the topics meet the general notability guidelines due to WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jreferee t/c 07:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover Square Station

This is a non-existent New York City Subway station. It is proposed to be a part of the Second Avenue Subway, but construction is neither started, nor scheduled, nor funded. The current forecasted completion date is 2020, but as there is no funding, this is merely a guess. If it is built, it would be many years from now. There have been various Second Avenue Subway proposals since the 1920s, of which this is merely the most recent. Nothing verifiable or notable can be said about the station until construction (if it happens) gets much closer. See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Marc Shepherd 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the identical reasons:

Chatham Square Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seaport Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Marc Shepherd 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. If construction isn't even funded, then how do we know it will be built? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: NN until it becomes closer to construction (WP:CBALL). - Rjd0060 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Sc straker 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. STORMTRACKER 94 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Second Avenue Subway, per Rjd0060's reasons for deletion. DanTD 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are unnecessary in this case. Nothing else links to these articles, or is likely to, except for Second Avenue Subway itself. They don't even follow the correct naming convention for New York City Subway articles. Marc Shepherd 20:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second Avenue Subway per DanTD. The nominator practically makes a case of inverse notability given the numerous proposals dating as far back as the 1920s. RFerreira 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is of some kind of subway proposal on Second Avenue, not of those hypothetical stations. Marc Shepherd 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the Second Avenue Subway is not to completed to at least 2020, there has been more progress in recent years and federal funding has been commmitted to the project. This should be kept as part of expecting the new subway line. Empire2000 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is Federal funding committed only for Phase 1, which includes none of the stations that are the subject of this AfD. Marc Shepherd 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:CBALL, as there is no guarantee that it will ever be built.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Second Avenue Subway may have an uncertain status, but many non-existing stations with uncertain status have articles such as the MTR Ho Man Tin, Tamar, Exhibition and Whampoa Garden. The Ho Man Tin, Tamar, Exhibition and Whampoa stations are part of projects that are not yet funded or are under construction. The Second Avenue Subway is under construction and construction may be more certain. Therefore, keep all. --User:HManat23 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too speculative and too far in the future. Edison 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second Avenue Subway#Planned SAS route/stations. "Hanover Square Station" is by no means an implausible or unreasonable search term (our naming conventions are just a Wikipedia standard), and if anyone searches for that, they should be sent to the article where the topic is covered. At present, the station is too far off into the future to be sure that the station will certainly be built. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second Avenue Subway#Planned SAS route/stations per Sjakkalle, not to mention our well-established WP:REDIRECT guidelines. Burntsauce 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about a station that doesn't even exist yet is crazy. Plus, I agree that it is not in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL, and it is not even in favor of the project naming convention. I may support a redirect, but I don't think it is all that necessary. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, if you allow articles like the Tamar Station or Ho Man Tin Station to be allowed, why not these? They may be indefinite, but look people, the Tamar Station and the Exhibition Station is too far into the horizon. Hong Kong may cancel the projects, meaning that these stations won't be built. Now let's look back at the Second Avenue Subway. The people saying delete are too ignorant of what is happening. The SAS is under construction, while projects out there in the other side of the world that have pages about proposed stations may not occur because of funding. We could say the Hanover Sq station, Seaport and Chatham Sq are proposed, but not entirely cut out from the project or cancelled. Yes, the SAS has a history of delays and bureaucratic red tape, but it doesn't mean, you could be so myopic to just say delete to pages that talk about stations that are proposed. Now I want EVERY ONE OF YOU to go the MTA's Capital Construction page and go to Second Avenue Subway and read the documents. And you will see it is proposed and is closer to the horizon than you think. To Imdanumber1, you are crazy. "An article about a station that doesn't exist is crazy!" YOU ARE SO MYOPIC! DO YOU USE WIKIPEDIA? Look at how many stations that have pages yet they are under construction or proposed. I live in New York City since I was born. I doubt anyone of you are New Yorkers. And even if you are, you are too ignorant to study mass transportation projects. Now go to the future transportation list, and look at proposed projects and proposed stations or infrastructures. This is not a joke. To Voxpuppet, you are in Britain, what do you know about New York? Wikipedia is for people to learn about things, past, present and future. We must provide as much as we know to the world to serve the world. Then why do we have Wikipedia? And what about abandoned subway stations? They don't serve the public, they don't exist on a regular revenue map,but why are they there?-User:HManat23

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Johnson (radio)

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTE and WP:NOR. It may be worth mentioning that I am the original creator of the article. Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no good reason why this article shouldn't exist except that it of course fails WP:N. --Beloved Freak 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Obviously NN. - Rjd0060 14:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nom If you were the original author, I think slapping a {{db-author}} on it would be faster than Afd.--Sethacus 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I see others have made substantial edits, so nvm the tag. Delete as non-notable.--Sethacus 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this Johnson per nom. Burntsauce 17:22, 8 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note to closing admin

Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:

Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional toxins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional medicines and drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional super metals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet more lists of fictional substances. Completely contrived from primary sources, these articles are nothing more than original research (and at least one admits as much in the first paragraph -- "Grouping is done by what seems most likely."). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything made up in the comic book/sci-fi universe. Non-notable, trivial comicruft.

Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can't think of a better example of a) original research b) listcruft c) fancruft d) a violation of WP:IINFO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletium all In this case, it's a trivia trove; author worked hard, save it to your hard drive, etc., but there's nothing significant about making up a name for a plot device. This could well be called a list of made up words ending in "-ium": Acoustium, Administratium, etc.. down to Zuunium, for "elements" that (a) don't exist in reality and (b) have a "magical power" or a superlative quality of lightweight, strength, etc. At some point, everyone discovers the periodic table and finds that each element has a different number of protons and that the higher up you go, the less stable you are. I guess it would ruin the "fun" if a writer tried to explain that (blank)ium has "187 protons" or what-not. Mandsford 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above STORMTRACKER 94 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/modify All Notability is satisfied by the major impact of the concept fictional elements(etc..) are used for. As plot devices in Sci-Fi and fantasy works such things are often the main driving point to stories. This deletion would remove articles about the subject in entirety. While specific instances of the use of such things may be trivial, the trivial uses don't have their own articles and are instead noted in a larger article about the concept as a whole. Per WP:notability "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." The articles are about the TOPICS of fictional substances. Those topics are Notable. "Explodium" may not be notable enough for an article of it's own, but it is worth mentioning in an article on fictional elements.--Marhawkman 00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And notability is currently not established by reliable thirdparty sources (WP:N, WP:RS), making all entries and therefore the whole lists trivial. Even if notability was established, I'd argue that wikipedia doesn't need to list every possible fictional substance to get the point across; a handful would be completely sufficient. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - RS is a Guideline not a policy. It is completely inapplicable in most situations concerning works of fiction. Why? third party sources are unofficial and thus (Generally) not considered Reliable. Thus for FICTION we must use first party sources.--Marhawkman 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instead of lowering our standards and "bend" the rules, why not just follow the guidelines we have for fiction: Topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) are covered in the article on that work of fiction. The only exception that could possibly apply would be #1: If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long. However, if they were notable in their own right, reliable sources would already exist (and we wouldn't need to change our standards just for fiction). /Blaxthos 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear, these articles actually do have reliable sources. Primary sources are reliable, especially in the case of fiction. If these articles have a weakness in sources, that weakness is probably due to a shortage of secondary sources to prove notability. The reliability of the sources is not in doubt. -- Lilwik 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a Message board I'd say something like "STFU NOOB". But since this is Wikipedia, I'll post his from Wikipedia:No original research:

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into three categories:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that sum up other secondary sources and primary sources. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources. Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that wikipedia users stick to the sources."

In the case of Judge Dredd, the source is the movie and/or comic books. but those are considered PRIMARY souces. As stated above, a lack of reliable TERTIARY sources does not make something non-notable.--Marhawkman 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to give your comment the dignity of a response, except to point you to WP:FICTION and the notability guidelines. Regarding "STFU NOOB" and pasting an entire guideline into an AFD discussion, I'm letting WP:ANI handle it. /Blaxthos 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my opinion above. (I don't think there will be hard feelings. Most contributers were drive-by IPs anyway.)– sgeureka ^t•c 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Marhawkman makes a good point. First, this is based on fiction, so it's unlikely you'd find the same type of sources you'd find for, say, cats or nuclear fusion. Second, though individual entries might seem overly trivial, for many this is all the information they have here, and for some can surve as a starting point for articles of their own. Third, I certainly don't like the tone of some of the people here. No one needs to be quoted the difference between a primary and secondary source, and CERTAINLY no one needs to be told "STFU NOOB", even if qualitifed as something you WOULD say. So, I'm for keeping this article as is, 100%. Kevin 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we should not lower our standards for the type of sources we find acceptable for fiction... We should raise our standards for inclusion to those explicitly stated in the appropriate guideline. /Blaxthos 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with fire Lists like these are just disgusting. Nothing encyclopedic about them. Discuss ones that are important on the article with which they are associated, and delete the lists. i ^said 04:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I was a better man than to comment on making such a post immediately after a scatching comment about inappropriate tones. But I'm not. We're at least nominally supposed to have a productive discussion of the situation and our options, and spewing hatred for the articles - which, mind, some contributors have worked hard to build - isn't conductive. Please try to maintain some level of respect. --Kizor 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know some users have worked hard to build cruft articles like these; it's why articles like this are resoundingly salient. And I do dislike articles like these. People seem to think every article on fictional minutiae is encyclopedic. My comment may not have been particularly flowery, but it was hardly "spewing hatred". i ^said 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well are you averse to all Wikipedia lists in general, or just this one? Do you also hate Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction? What about List of battles (alphabetical)? What about List of fictional animals (other)? My point is your argument doesn't sound like one against this one in particular, but more a tirade against lists in Wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvn8907 (talk • contribs)

Well, yes.Most articles entitled List of X are bad in my book. As for the specific examples you gave, I'd only begrudgingly keep the list of battles one, because it would be difficult to navigate a category. As a side note, that motif of harmful sensation looks like original research, I don't even think it's a legitimate term. But lists like this, basically List of (Fictional minutiae), should go. This one included. i ^said 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything about these articles that makes them necessarily original research. There may be some original research somewhere in the articles, but that can be removed without deleting the entire articles. I think that we should improve these articles to raise them to the standards of Wikipedia because they are fun articles that make Wikipedia better, and they are useful articles to people researching such topics. Since Wikipedia is better with these articles than without these articles, it seems that WP:IAR would also apply if there were any rule saying these articles should be deleted, which is far from clear. -- Lilwik 07:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "fun articles" do not necessarily "make wikipedia better". Being useful is not in-and-of itself a reason to keep an article, and I certainly don't see how an article that simply lists fictional substances in comic books and sci-fi could ever be truely useful (or appropriate for this project). Regarding your assumption that it's prudent to ignore all rules, I really don't think this article comes anywhere close to the threshold necessary to ignore WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I must disagree The article DOES meet the standards of those four article you posted Blaxthos.

From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The topic is "Fictional elements". Does it qualify? I think it does. The concept itself is individually notable.

"No Original Research" DOES NOT preclude using Primary sources. Original research is creating your own information. The articles in question are derived from a variety of sources that are independantly verifiable and thus do not fall under that category of original research.

Last I checked, deriving an article from comic books was sufficient to satisfy "reliable sources".--Marhawkman 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced original research. I don't quite understand some of the logic being used here. It seems to be that since it does not meet the standrds for WP:FICTION and WP:RS, we should not enforce those standards, we should lower them until the articles we like fit them? Mr.Z-man 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Exactly. Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]

Delete all, categories and subcategories can capture the ones that are notable enough to have their own articles. SolidPlaid 22:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. Very notable. Also not original research, it's all sourced. Primary sources are the best types of sources for fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]

- Comment - Given that your contribution history is almost entirely vandalism moves, and the fact that you say "Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs", I don't think that your reasoning has much merit. /Blaxthos 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Resolution - Account has been indefinitely blocked. /Blaxthos 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a ad hominem fallacy to argue that a person's reasoning is flawed because of personal flaws. We should try to avoid personal attacks. And I don't think we are allowed to strike out the comments of other people. -- Lilwik 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dude, it's a vandalism account that has been indefinitely blocked, not an argument about personal flaws. There was no personal attack involved. I'm striking (but not removing) because the account is not a valid editor and has been banned from the project. /Blaxthos 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am as surprised as you are that a vandalism account has been used for anything remotely serious, but it seems to have happened. Vandalism accounts are blocked to prevent vandalism, not to prevent meaningful contributions to discussions. Just because this person has done vandalism does not mean that the contributions to this discussion should be ignored, and I certainly don't think it gives you the right to edit another person's comment, even just to strike it. Can you provide a link to the place that says you are allowed to do that? -- Lilwik 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really arguing that we should consider this account's opinion as meaningful, in the best interests of the project, and legitimate? Especially considering the fact that (1) it's already been indefinitely removed from the project, (2) the account is a few days old, and (3) it has never provided any meaningful content to the project? I stand by my actions, and I believe that by repeatedly standing up for such incivility because it coincides with your !vote you are doing us all (including yourself) a disservice. /Blaxthos 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saying "Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs." is not a productive contribution to this discussion. Not to mention all the inaccuracies in their other statement. Just because an article has sources does not mean it can't be OR. Primary sources are not the best source for anything here except perhaps plot summaries. Mr.Z-man 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to be clear, it would not matter to me who you were striking out. You don't have the right to strike out anyone here, whether they agree with me or not, and ad hominem arguments are never useful. Notice how M.Z-man argues against the statements rather than the person and how that is different from what you have been doing. The only incivility I see here is one ridiculous attack on the notability rules, and several extreme attacks on an editor, including personal attacks and going so far as to repeatedly vandalize his or her comments. I won't get into an edit war over the strike-outs, but I hope someone else will help fix this. -- Lilwik 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop feeding the trolls. It's a vandalism account, not a real editor. Regarding the "ridiculous attack on the notability rules"... how does that work exactly? From WP:FICTION:

...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".
— WP:FICTION

Now, are we "attacking" the notability rules, or are we enforcing them? WP:FICTION explicitly states that topics are only notable when secondary sources cover "real-world content", as defined above. None of these have any sort of secondary sourcing because they're simply not notable (by our own rules!). Hope this helps clear the air. /Blaxthos 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was Wutizevrybudylookingat? who was attacking the notability rules. -- Lilwik 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we don't need a secondary source for every entry in the list. We don't need a secondary source for even one of them. All that is needed for notability in the case of a list is that the list itself is about a notable subject, and I think that is clear for most or all of these lists, even if they currently lack good secondary sources to prove it. I'm sure that the required secondary sources are available somewhere, and that is where our efforts should be directed, rather than this Afd. -- Lilwik 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilwik is quite right. This is why I c/ped that section of the rules on sources. Some editors seem to think you cannot use primary sources in articles at all. That is wrong. you must use other sources to establish notability, but those are not always neccesary when writing an article. The main thing to remember with list articles is that it is the article as a whole that you must establish notability for. The individual items do not require the same notability, unless they have their own articles. Is "adminstratium" or "explodium" individually notable? Absolutely not. But that is why they don't have articles of their own. Is the concept of fictional elements individually notable? Well, there have been (a rough estimate) at least 100 works of fiction that featured one or more fictional elements as a key part of the plot. That more than satisfies the notability requirements.--Marhawkman 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is highly notable content. We probably could and should have individual articles on some of these, but there should be no problem sourcing they occur in the works listed. The work itself is usable for plot, and by common sense also in for the other textual contents of the book or movie or whatever. DGG (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic, of value and argument for deletion amounts to I don't like it. Best solution is to ignore it, not delete it. The bit about this article being "contrived" foxes me. How can anything edited by numerous people over two years be planned? Best conspiracy theory yet. Hiding Talk 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These pages are just lists of information easily obtainable throughout the rest of wikipedia. For instance, if I wanted to search "Phazon", I wouldn't go to the List of Fictional Toxins page, instead I would go to the Metroid Prime page. Furthermore, alone, the lists bear no encyclopedic content. Once again, all content on the pages is taken or already stated in each element's respective primary page. It is unnecessary to have these lists, and so, they should be deleted. 24.15.53.225 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, if you were looking for something other than the content of these lists you would look somewhere else in Wikipedia, but that is true of every article. What would you do if you were looking for an overview of fictional materials, or searching for a fictional material with certain properties? If you don't know the name of the material or the work of fiction it is from, then you want one of these lists. -- Lilwik 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As is clear from the policy wording pasted above, making descriptive claims about primary sources is not original research. Saying that this is unencyclopedic is a matter of opinion not supported by policy, and to those who find this "disgusting", sorry but Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes explains why the possibility of a category does not preclude the validity of a list. DHowell 04:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all following DHowell. (Emperor 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment to all the keeps: How can you argue that any of this meets our notability guideline when WP:FICTION clearly states: ...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".? It seems that everyone conveniently overlooks this basic requirement for notability. /Blaxthos 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not clear that no such secondary sources exist, and this topic seems inherently notable since it is so widespread in science fiction and fantasy fiction. That guideline is only offering one way in which something can be recognized as notable; we can also decide that it is notable for other reasons. We can also choose to keep these lists because they are useful tools for accessing the content of Wikipedia. -- Lilwik 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inherently notable? Do you have any policies or guidelines (besides WP:IAR) that support your assertion that we should ignore both WP:N and WP:FICTION? /Blaxthos 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you suggesting that we ignore IAR? Have you looked around for sources about fictional chemicals? How about Chemistry and Science Fiction (American Chemical Society Publication) by Jack H. Stocker[9]. I don't have a copy of the book itself, but I think its content is pretty clear from that webpage. -- Lilwik 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am suggesting that we hold ourselves to the standards the project has explicitly given us for notability in fiction, reliable sources, and verifiability. I am suggesting we show some maturity and not immediately jump to ignoring all the rules when the rules don't fit with what we like. /Blaxthos 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maturity also means not trying to be rules lawyers, and IAR is specifically designed to prevent that. But if that book isn't enough to convince you, there is more. I never imagined that finding this stuff would be so easy! Have you heard of The International Journal for The Philosophy of Chemistry? You can read the full text of an interesting paper here: [10] It's about the public image of chemistry, as seen through works of fiction. -- Lilwik 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the sources listed have anything to do with the indiscriminate list we now have. Retroactively trying to find quasi-related books (which by-and-large are not peer-reviewed, reliable sources) to establish notability isn't going to cut it. You're welcome to get some sources, and then use said sources to write an article about the real-world impact of fictional materials -- that would be a perfect article that would meet WP:N and WP:RS. A big hodgepodge list of every made-up substance in every comic book in print or online is neither encyclopedic nor a productive use of our time -- we're not in the business of plot summaries, or lists of plot devices. /Blaxthos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And things like Kryptonite are notable - you don't have to keep proving notability each time it is mentioned. (Emperor 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - Absolutely. There should be articles (that are properly sourced) for items that are truely notable. The list, however, fails both WP:NOT and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. The Article in question DOES fulfill the requirements of WP:Notability and WP: Reliable Sources. The article is about a vague concept, thus anything that uses the concept would be considered a secondary source. The list could use some fact checking, but it exists to illustrate the concept. the sheer size of the list should give you an idea as to the "realworld impact" that the concept has. --Marhawkman 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a very creative interpretation of how things work. /Blaxthos 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? It's an article about an abstract concept. As far as I know, the rules about sources would only consider the concept itself as a primary source.--Marhawkman 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. That's why we require secondary sources that discusses the real-world implications of the concept. A far far cry from these lists. /Blaxthos 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there something wrong with the secondary sources you've been shown? There's no point in demanding secondary sources if you intend to ignore them when they are given to you. Notability has been proven. -- Lilwik 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See this diff. /Blaxthos 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was hoping you might offer something more convincing if prompted. Whether you personally like the sources or not isn't a big issue for me. They show that fictional chemicals are notable enough as a concept to have papers written about them, and that's good enough for WP:N and WP:FICTION, and that is all that is required for this list. -- Lilwik 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erm... the article does have sources. It lists those as part of the article itself. :/ It would be better if they were properly documented in a section of the article, but as is they are there. NOTE: "x appeared in y" fulfills the guidlines of providing sources.--Marhawkman 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it does not have reliable sources, per WP:FICTION. Reliable sources are secondary sources that deal with real-world information. /Blaxthos 05:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - once again you've posted an objection based on a misunderstood guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) does NOT require an article to be written using secondary sources. It only requires them to establish notability. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) articles about fiction should use Reliable Primary sources as a basis for the article. Also a "WP:reliable source" IS NOT necessarily a secondary source.--Marhawkman 06:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid creating new articles on fictional topics that lack substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors.
— WP:FICTION

Notice the word prove. Please show me where there is any acceptable source (as defined in WP:FICTION) for 99% of the information contained in this list. Please keep in mind this is a list, not an article, and so the content is what establishes notability. /Blaxthos 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking for and what you have quoted do not match. The quote just says that the article needs to have some significant connection to the real world, which we've already shown through secondary sources. Your expectation of a secondary source for everything in the list is unreasonable and it is not in any guideline. -- Lilwik 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that. WP:fiction doesn't cover the content of articles. The article is composed of peices of information related to other articles. These peices of information do not actually have articles of their own in most cases. Per WP:SAL it is perfectly acceptable to include items that cannot be expected to ever have an article about them. Also stand alone lists are wikipedia articles and subject to the same requirements. This means that it is the TOPIC of the list that must fulfill notability requirements.--Marhawkman 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ideally the pages should be lists of notable fictional things, not of all found fictional things, rather as List of eponymous laws tries to constrain itself to eponyms with articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry guys, but the contents of a list must themselves be notable to warrant inclusion (as defined by WP:FICTION - more than just "published in fiction"), otherwise it is just an indiscriminant collection of information (something policy prohibits). /Blaxthos 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying that. But you've never shown any reason for your assertation. WP:FICTION does not govern the content of articles, not even list articles.--Marhawkman 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear. See WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT in general (note that this is an official policy). I also encourage you to see the administrator's comments when (properly) closing the related AFD and deleting the article. /Blaxthos 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up - Lists are supposed to be meta-indexes for finding related articles, not a dumping ground for otherwise non-notable trivia (a backdoor around WP:N). Few (if any) of the items in this list have their own articles (nor should they). From WP:LIST: "Stand-alone lists, including "lists of links", are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list (or a list of lists). These lists may contain links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places, or a timeline of events.". Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- from WP:SAL "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles:". This article falls into that category.--Marhawkman 01:04, 12 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 per my closure over here, this doesn't have the usual level of consensus. The keep arguments comprise mainly WP:WAX, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTINHERITED, whereas the deletes are more persuasive. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional chemical substances, A-M

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note to closing admin

Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:

Fictional chemical substances, A-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fictional chemical substances, N-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fictional chemical substance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)

Entirely original research (from primary sources only) that attempts to catalogue every fictional chemical substance used in fiction. The list is hopelessly large in scope, and is nothing more than comicruft. Merge any relevant information into the parent articles, but we shouldn't be a repository for comic book/sci-fi trivia. See a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials.

Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I found these surprisingly interesting (who knew X-Men and Warhammer had shared elements?) but not really an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Save it on your own disk-space before it vanishes, but I agree, it isn't encylopedic. It's easy to create a fictional chemical substance, and fictional substances are more interesting than boring stuff like, say, "potassium chloride". New ones are introduced in comic books every month. In effect, fictional substances are just inanimate characters to help tell a story. Mandsford 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable and unsourced. Crazysuit 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with fire Lists like these are just disgusting. Nothing encyclopedic about them. Disuss ones that are important on the article with which they are associated, and delete the lists. </cut & paste> i ^said 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, catgories and subcategories can capture the ones that are notable enough to have their own articles. SolidPlaid 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as much better organized than a category and after all encyclopedias help to organize information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is it not encyclopedic. Plot elements in general are, if they are used in important works. (And I incorporate by reference all the arguments in the above AfD, which apply here as well)DGG (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic, of value and argument for deletion amounts to I don't like it. Best solution is to ignore it, not delete it. The bit about this article being "hopelessly large in scope" bamboozles me. Thank the lucky stars we've so far ignored that argument as it pertains to an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Ironic that were we to follow the argument that things which are hopelessly large in scope should be deleted, there would be nowhere to make that argument. Wikipedia disappears in a puff of logic. Hiding Talk 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominators reasoning that this is "original research (from primary sources only)" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the actual policy, which says: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources [including primary sources] within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Saying that this is unencyclopedic is a matter of opinion not supported by policy, and to those who find this "disgusting", sorry but Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes explains why the possibility of a category does not preclude the validity of a list. DHowell 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with being censored? i ^said 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with original research is that it is haphazard. Look at the list; it includes fictional elements as well as substances, and has entries from books, comic books, TV shows, movies and games. One book, The Ogre Downstairs, has several entries, but the book itself is barely notable. In my opinion, this list is failing peer review. SolidPlaid 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realised the deadline for finished articles had been set yet. Oh wait, what's that, it hasn't? So how do we know peer review has failed, if there is no time constraint on the reviewing? Didn't we use to have a {{sofixit}}? Hiding Talk 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be "fixed" by userfying the list and creating individual pages at leisure. SolidPlaid 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a lot of entries on fictional chemical substances and having a list to collect them all together is preferable to creating a category. It may be that some kind of clean-up, trimming, splitting, editing is needed but the concept itself seems solid. (Emperor 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep all. This is so much better than categorizing these things even if the lists need improvement. Doczilla 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all the keeps: How can you argue that any of this meets our notability guideline when WP:FICTION clearly states: ...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".? It seems that everyone conveniently overlooks this basic requirement for notability. /Blaxthos 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once again, you misunderstand. Notability is for the article as a whole. It is the concept of Fictional Chemicals that Notability must be established for. Notability does not determine the content of an article.--Marhawkman 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Established by what, exactly? I say we go with what our rules say. Do I need to quote it again? "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that "describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content"". Can you please show us where notability has been established, by our requirements? /Blaxthos 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is about an abstract concept. Any source other than the focus of the article is either secondary or tertiary. As an abstract concept, that is pretty much everything. We can't actually use the concept itself as a source.--Marhawkman 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try as I may, I can't comprehend what you're saying. I honestly can't say if the deficiency is mine or yours. /Blaxthos 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - the articles are about the concept of fictional chemicals. whether the individual chemicals are notable is irrelevent.--Marhawkman 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you should write an article about the concept of fictional materials as it relates to the real-world, per our guidelines. These are just fluffy lists -- grouping a whole lot of non-notable fictional materials together in a list doesn't make it any more notable. /Blaxthos 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Been thinking about that. It'd probably have a longer header at the top, but it'd still be a list article.--Marhawkman 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I encourage you to, so long as its content is restricted to verifiable information that meets with substantial coverage in reliable sources as defined by the appropriate guideline. I think either here or at the other related AfD you've already found some sources that would meet with our needs. /Blaxthos 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like we need secondary sources about fictional chemicals to establish notability of the concept here. So here are some:

Chemistry and Science Fiction (American Chemical Society Publication) by Jack H. Stocker[11]
A paper in The International Journal for The Philosophy of Chemistry: "Chemistry and Power in Recent American Fiction" by Philip Ball. Full text: [12]

-- Lilwik 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Sorry, but retroactively finding quasi-related "sources" from which the article is not sourced doesn't establish notability. As I've said elsewhere, writing an article about fictional chemical substances using the verifiable information contained in the sources is a great idea, but googling "fictional chemical substances" and then trying to use the results to establish notability on a list is not. They don't establish notability on what we have here, which is just a collection of chemical substances made up in fiction. /Blaxthos 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - They seem to establish notability on the surface. They are scholarly work on just exactly this subject. You can claim that this appearance is deceptive all you want, but unless you supply some sort of reasons to support it, you can't convince anyone. -- Lilwik 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the fact that it was so easy to find only suggests that there is far more than this to be found, if one were to look harder than mere googling. -- Lilwik 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list articles. Create a category Fictional chemical substances, and put the individual articles (Adamantium, Thiotimoline, etc.) in it. That's what the category system is for. Then, if anyone finds anything encyclopedic to say about the concept of fictional chemical substances, that article can be re-created. Unfortunately, I don't see anything to say about such substances as a group, beyond "People come up with fictional substances." --Quuxplusone 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ein problem. That'd acheive the same thing as deleting the article completly. Most of the things mentioned in the article are there because they don't have pages of their own. Zwei problem. There is already far more than that in the article.--Marhawkman 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you've hit the nail on the head... the rest of them are not notable (per WP:N and WP:FICTION). /Blaxthos 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This certainly is not original research, since sources are given for everything. The subject is also notable and the elements of a list are not required to be individually notable. Even so, the list seems rather long and it might be better if some of the more trivial entries were trimmed. -- Lilwik 07:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. /Blaxthos 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's your point? Show me where you've gotten this weird idea that everything in a list article must be individually notable. I certainly can't find one. the policy on Lists specifically says otherwise.--Marhawkman 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the official policy what we are not: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". See WP:NOT#IINFO (specifically number 2). /Blaxthos 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up - Lists are supposed to be meta-indexes for finding related articles, not a dumping ground for otherwise non-notable trivia (a backdoor around WP:N). Few (if any) of the items in this list have their own articles (nor should they). From WP:LIST: "Stand-alone lists, including "lists of links", are articles consisting of a lead section followed by a list (or a list of lists). These lists may contain links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places, or a timeline of events.". Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you'd read WP:SAL you'd have noticed "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles:". --Marhawkman 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Style guidelines do not trump official policies (or notability guidelines). /Blaxthos 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Notability is only considered when determining whether the TOPIC of an article is appropriate. As far as I can tell there is no guideline or policy that makes List articles any different in this regard.--Marhawkman 01:11, 12 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 by WP:SNOW as a hoax or non-notable. Bearian 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan's Tips To Survive School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sullivan's Tips To Survive School

I found this article while sorting through uncategorized pages. Delete due to notability issues. Google test produced 2 unrelated hits Lenticel ^(talk) 11:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due To Lack Of Notability, And Hideous Capitalisation. J Milburn 11:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and no meaningful content. /Blaxthos 12:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Created by John Smith...right. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and seems impossible to find verifiable sources for. I could find no hits on google unrelated to Wikipedia and is not on IMDB. Hoax? --Beloved Freak 12:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it's not a hoax then it's clearly some sort of home-made production with no notability or independent reviews. The "garage band" of television programmes. A1octopus 12:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 18:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not a hoax then it is utterly non-notable. Either way it shouldn't be here. Hut 8.5 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity version of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide only known to article editor. Obvious hoax. Nate 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only a hoax, but it was a poorly-written one, with every single word capitalised. And Google searches only brought up links to this article. -- azumanga 22:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no meaningful content worth saving. RFerreira 00:10, 7 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep (also taking into account the duplicate nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salian Frankish Mythology). This discussion seems to be the result of a scholarly dispute. It should first be attempted to be resolved through discussion and merging, not through deletion. Sandstein 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salian Mythology

essay by Rokus01 (talk · contribs). no such term. Valid material belongs merged to Continental Germanic mythology. c.f. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant material not already covered into Continental Germanic mythology. /Blaxthos 12:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Blaxthos. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is much information to allow us to really distinguish the various Frankish peoples from each other, much less their mythologies. If information on Frankish mythology belongs anywhere, it is at an article of that title, but I trust the other editors when they say that all this speculation is adequately covered already elsewhere. Srnec 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamp properly sourced and pretends nothing more than an assessment to the pre-christian believes of an important Germanic tribe, that has the bad luck of being sparsely documented. However, their history has been discussed by experts and their believes are partly reconstructed. Not any quote has been given to sustain the claim of some bunch of "students" that there is no such thing as a Salian identity or background. Their arguments are of an hypercritical nature, of the kind that could be employed to deny or delete anything. Still, the assessment is of academic level and all sourced. I suspect some bad faith and kind of sockpuppets (none of the two I am talking of have an very impressive and diverse Wikipedia history, and opera singer Almira [13] presents herself suddenly as an expert in Frankish history) that have the intention to invalidate the credibility of Salian existence. Really, I am astonished by this display of apparent hostility. Rokus01 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, trim, and source. Much of this does belong in Continental Germanic mythology; some of it appears to be OR (for example: Gregory was not confused, he was using interpretatio Romana.) But Continental Germanic mythology is not much better than this, and this does contain material not there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of topic where articles are needed, and there are sources sufficient for an improved one to be written. WP should have balanced coverage. DGG (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with ContGerMyth. See my statements at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salian Frankish Mythology--Victor falk 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has no reliable sources, can not be made verifiable and it has not a Neutral Point of View since it is constituted on one student's work that ignores all major scholars. The originall author (Rokus01) tries to belittle people for being an operasinger (see his reaction above) and otherwise tells wikipedians who do not agree with him to keep their "senseles waffle" johanthon 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and trim, source and merge with Continental Germanic mythology, if that can be done without speculations being presented as indisputable facts. -Almirena 12:59, 12 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. Carlossuarez46 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wilkinson

A radio presenter who does not meet notability standards. Although some of the information is verifiable, there are very limited third-party sources about him that would assert the notability of the individual. Only sources available are the Web Archive's copy of 100.7 Heart FM and 100 Century FM presenter profile pages, and his page on 96 Trent FM's website. This does not have any WP:BLP issues, it is just that he probably doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability or WP:BIO as standards. Solumeiras ^talk 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any independent sources or credible assertion of notability. Cruftbane 10:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. /Blaxthos 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cruftbane. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 18:36, 6 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, without prejudice to someone being WP:BOLD and creating a redirect in line with any of the suggestions below (of course). Carlossuarez46 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Company

While recently created as a stub, this article seems to have been created based on a misunderstanding. "Able" Company is the generic designated name for the first company in the first battalion of any given regiment during the Second World War. Assuming good faith, I believe the editor has mistaken "Able Company" to be a unique entity and identified it as the 116th Infantry Regiment (United States), with the only "source" being the computer game Company of Heroes, which is loosely based on the 116th Infantry Regiment, among others.

There are precedents for articles for individual companies, the most notable being E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which has established notability through a book and television miniseries (Band of Brothers). However, A Company of the 116th Infantry Regiment does not have the same notability, which I believe fails WP:N Mention of A Company's contribution to the Omaha Beach landing is summarised in one sentence at Omaha_Beach#Infantry_landings, outside of which there appears to be no notability.

Should the article not be deleted, it will need to be distinguished from the countless other A Companies. Scottie_theNerd 09:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about creating an article for 'Able Company' with the correct definition and redirecting this article there? Nick mallory 09:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That only article that has such a page is Easy Company, and there's barely any reason for it to exist when the most notable E Company is E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). "Able Company" by itself fails WP:N, and there is little purpose in creating a general "definition" article. Also consider that Companies are, in theory, named all the way from A to Z. Should we be creating separate pages for these definitions? --Scottie_theNerd 11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to company (military unit). It isn't even specifically American. --Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The military unit isn't specifically American, but the article was created to refer to the American unit that formed part of the 116th Infantry Regiment of the United States. There's little in common between this "Able Company" and company (military unit), so would a redirect be necessary? --Scottie_theNerd 11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion normally means that the existing content of the article is obliterated. Thus any connection is based solely on the interpretation of the title alone. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incorporate any necessary information to Omaha Beach and 116th Inf Regt articles. Buckshot06 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are proposing a merger, which under the GFDL requires either merging the history or keeping a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom. this isnt hard guys--NightRider63 02:00, 10 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 deleted per CSD G11 Pumpmeup 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to slimm down your Windows XP

This article is written in manual style, more suited for the other wikis which describe how-to processes. It is possible that information of an encyclopaedic nature may be salvaged from this article; the bulk of it, however, should either be deleted or moved. James Sugrono_{Contributions} 08:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a csd - copyvio tag on it, as it is obviously just copy-pasted from [14]. I'm not sure whether to remove the AfD tag or what - can someone else help out? Pumpmeup 09:21, 6 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. The actual merge is left as an exercise for the relevant wikiproject and the editors of the target article. GRBerry 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectory Hermeneutics

This looks like original research to me. Cruftbane 08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find anything useful on it. Could be of use merged into another article (though I doubt a suitable one exists) Pumpmeup 09:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. /Blaxthos 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' and admonish people to look hard before they nominate. Some simple searching online shows that the subject is not original research, although the article may contain some. Although it appears to be relatively new, it also appears to be a valid and fairly widely mentioned and studied theological approach. I can find at least that an entire chapter of "“Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? Wayne Grudem(2006)" is devoted to it, It's covered as a topic in advanced Hermeneutics classes in both the United States and Australia... Looks notable to me just the usual unreferenced poor stub of an article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral for now, but it's not OR, there are sources on this. Many of them seem to be blogs so the problem may be finding good sources. Seems to be related to Evangelic / Christian feminism.

- Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis

--Beloved Freak 12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:OR. STORMTRACKER 94 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the closest I can find to an WP:RS, a book by the author (Grudem) of the review that is the only reference currently listed in the article. That reference exists to support elaboration upon the statement that "One proponent of trajectory hermeneutics is William J. Webb", but it seems that Webb uses the term "redemptive-movement hermeneutics" while Grudem calls it "trajectory hermeneutics". In any case, while I don't think this is WP:OR, I do think it fails WP:FRINGE and therefore WP:N. I'm willing to change my opinion if WP:RS is supplied to show otherwise. Pete.Hurd 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct. It certainly isn't original research, as some hunting beyond a simple google search shows but may be a non-notable fringe position. Grudem is certainly a proponent but so is "Webb, William J. Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001." As noted in "The Journal for Bibilical Manhood and Womanhood, Vol 3 No.1 " the concept predates 1996 and originated with a Asbury Seminary Professor David Thompson. It does appear though to be a phrase used by few but blogged on by many more - Peripitus (Talk) 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Article would be a fabulous subsection of Biblical hermeneutics. Benjiboi 05:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biblical hermeneutics as Benjiboi suggests. I think it would be a shame to lose the information as it does seem to be a genuine theory. There are tons of blog mentions of it - obviously they aren't reliable sources, but it's definitely being discussed out there. It doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article of its own though - maybe one day.--Beloved Freak 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biblical hermeneutics. Found several hits for it including Amazon, books.google.com, University of Chicago, Boston University, Northwest Nazarene University, Stanford University, Cambridge University and an article from Harvard University stating, "Gregory of Nyssa’s fifteen homilies on the Song of Songs follow the same. hermeneutical trajectory that began with Hippolytus of Rome (b. 170–75)". Several more colleges, theologians and noted Christians hits as well. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:53, 12 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 copyvio. J Milburn 10:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian citizenship test goes into effect

This is written in current affairs-style writing. Contains original research or unsourced statements. Should be merged or deleted, or moved to Wikinews. James Sugrono_{Contributions} 07:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very speedy delete: Looks like a copyright vio - a straight lift from here. --Mkativerata 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyvio and a news story. A (very) condensed version of the content may belong in the existing Australian citizenship test article, but the event isn't notable enough to deserve an article of its own. --Cosmo0 09:51, 6 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 (seems an unlikely search term and information is largely duplicated in The Hardy Boys). Espresso Addict 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hardy Boys Original Titles

Delete - prod removed with the rationale that "it might be controversial." Not really seeing what could be controversial about an "article" that's nothing but a linkfarm that duplicates the list already found at The Hardy Boys but by all means let's spend five days talking about it. Clear-cut violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 07:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see what purpose this "List" would serve, and the main Hardy Boys article is much more comprehensive, and also contains all this information. The only reason I could fathom for the "controversy" would be the age of the article, but couldn't this be sent under WP:CSD#A3, since it's just a huge list of links with no text? Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this linkfarm. /Blaxthos 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the books are in the Hardy Boys books category & this list doesn't seem to serve any further purpose. If need be (I'm not familiar with the subject) a subcategory can be created for "original titles". --Beloved Freak 13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be better covered in the main article, which includes a comprehensive list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. "Hey, why isn't this in ...?" It already is. Mandsford 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deleting to main article that already contains this list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to use "List of Hardy Boys Original Titles" with that capitalization as a search term. There is no point to a redirect. Otto4711 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Otto! I agree with what others wrote above about it being duplicate material and that therefore it doesn't need to be merged, but I figure the article creator and others who worked on the article may be examples of people who could type in List of Hardy Boys Original Titles and so a redirect would still fulfill your request to "delete" the article while providing those users who have and in the future might continue to look for the material a means of finding a much more expansive article that already contains this content. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a tiny bit of point to this -- the titles listed are considered canon and others are not necessarily -- but the information is perfectly clear in the main article and contains exactly the same links. I can see why it was created, it's just not necessary. Accounting4Taste 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that they are considered canon can surely be dealt with by a subcategory? It was probably created because some people don't like lists in main articles. --Beloved Freak 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have the titles changed since they were originally published? Delete, as there is already a category. i ^said 04:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Do not redirect. Wikipedia doesn't need useless redirects because of spelling. If someone manages to recreate the article: notify them, and protect the page. Until then, just deleting is the answer. RobJ1981 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication, however given the precedent set by episode lists for TV shows and a few other "list of X books" articles I've seen, it's not unreasonable to imagine listing the Hardy Boys books in their own article in order to shorten the main article on this topic. But as someone who actually isn't a fan of such spin-offs, I'm happy to see the book list remain in the main article. 23skidoo 15:42, 7 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, criteria G4 as reposted content previously deleted. Sam Blacketer 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

AfDs for this article:

Substantially the same article as from the last (May 2007) deletion discussion. Google is now approaching 1000 hits but still no news hits. Again, no assertion of notability. - Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G4 - if it's basically the same exact article then it can be speedied. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:38, 6 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. Waggers 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheGeekMedia

This article is of a non notable media hosting company. I previously nominated this for speedy deletion but the author removed the db tag from the page. As he or she was making a number of edits and explained the removal of the db tag on my user talk page I decided to leave it for a while to see if verifiable sources emerged. They haven't. The author tries to explain on his user page why the non-notable sources (blogs etc) he has used should be considered notable in this case [User:MenuetRanit], but I'm not convinced. This is a website which hosts media but it is not notable. B1atv 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP and utterly lacking WP:RS. /Blaxthos 12:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blaxthos. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, NN & adv --Pumpmeup 23:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be deleted because the company is not a notable company? Perhaps not by your exact standards but, in the new media community and the various communities it is connected to, The Geek Media is indeed a notable company. The credentials of the people Affiliated with the company can speak for themselves. Two published authors, a professional anime voice actor, a professional composer who has done soundtracks to games and movies. Quite a few of the people involved with this company have their own articles here on Wikipedia. The company has media coverage contracts with various conventions, sponsorships, affiliates and quite a few other things under their belts. However, just because they were not written about in a newspaper or put on a news story they suddenly aren't notable enough to have an entry? Alright. I'll go for that if the admins decide. And, if the article gets deleted then the individual Affiliates will begin to put up their own entries and they will indeed fit every one of your standards as someone notable enough to have an entry. MenuetRanit 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, someone may be notable but not the company. Just by having (completely unverified) perhaps notable employees does not make the company notable. Perhaps the company may be worthy of inclusion if they become an industry leader or do something outstanding as a corporate entity. For now, it is just promotion of a business that blatantly fails the notability criteria and yes, MenuetRanit, it is not currently worthy of inclusion. What you state on your userpage is the definition of an organization, not whether it is notable. Regarding sources, it's not a matter of what "new media" would call reliable - stuff that any Tom Dick or Harry could publish without practically any effort whatsoever is not a valid source. And I'm quite convinced that you're not impartial and neutral which violates heaps of commonsense rules as well. Delete this --Pumpmeup 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick to my previous statement. I'll leave it to the admins to decide and we will move on from there.MenuetRanit 07:24, 9 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. At the time of deletion, a badly written WP:OR essay with no sources. Sandstein 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented surfing

No references, cannot be verified; dubious. (Disputed prod. Note that it is copied from this at WikiAnswers - but not a copyvio.) -- RHaworth 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If any of the information is verifiable it can be added to surfing (which appears a bit weak in its 'origins' section by only covering Hawaiian surfing). --Mkativerata 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and put verifiable info into surfing per Mkativerata --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge editor seems to have references to back up his claims but would still be useful if sent to surfing. The article needs wikfying though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally prodded this, probably was speedy candidate. The only thing close to a reference was in an edit summary; checking that out was a self-published paper that itself wasn't convincing. Original research, reads like an essay, take your pick, just delete it. By the way, two other articles with identical text and slightly different titles have already been deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge. I think the author has given us some new sources which might have a bit of merit. Let's take the usable stuff and merge it into the "Origin" section of surfing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously not needed, content can be shortened and included in surfing. Pumpmeup 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not satisfy Wikipedia:Attribution, a core policy, and has original research, to boot. The fact that two similar articles were deleted is probably reason enough to delete this. If, and when, it ever meets Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:No original research requirements, can it be re-created. --Solumeiras ^talk 10:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about the history of surfing belongs in the main Surfing article, not in this essayish fork. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content into Surfing, then delete. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per Mkativerata and others OZ OO (What?) 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay, misplaced and misnamed. JJL 19:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge suggestion Having done some research on this now, the only net evidence supporting the claims in the article come from Peruvian travel and surfing sites (hardly neutral). I have found one neutral article which suggests 'some Peruvians insist...' surfing originated there. I suggest a para be added to the origins section of Surfing lead by 'Some Peruvians insist' or such-like, referenced by the article linked to above. Not enough verifiable evidence to support anything stronger. I'd also suggest History of surfing be merged into Surfing.--Mkativerata 21:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surfmac here and I really don't know the Wiki ropes but Henning http://www.surfrider.org/santabarbara/PagesMain/glen.html who started the non-profit Surfrider Foundation and has no known interest in Peru other than he likes the waves there. He has interviewed Dr. Thor Heyerdahl and written article and given a number of lectures on this theory. The archaeology is the oldest known evidence of surfing. This does not preclude another earlier "invention" but no other physical evidence exists. Sorry for being a Wiki-Idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfmac2004 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Reference Sources: Glen Henning, Published Author and Founder of Non-Profits GroundSwell Society and SurfRider Foundation. Document: [15]Document: [16] Document: [17] Graphic, Pre-Columbian Peruvian Surfer:File:Http://groundswellsociety.org/images/annualPub4cover.gif Graphic Pre Columbian Urn Peruvian Surfer: File:Http://www.softsurfboards.com/oldsurfer.jpg DOcument:By Marcus Sanders for Surfing Magazine [18] Surfmac2004 23:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the article should be moved to a less ambiguous title (perhaps History of surfing) or merged into Surfing. And no, you're not a "wiki-idiot". We're all new here at one point. =) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, titles shouldn't ask questions. And Surfmac2004, we're not trying to remove your content - only shift it to a more appropriate location, as in within the Surfing article. --Pumpmeup 05:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio delete. - Appears to be a copyvio of www.softsurfboards.com/MadeInPeru.htm. - CobaltBlueTony 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also www.waterwaystravel.com/peru/Chica.html. - CobaltBlueTony 13:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A Copyvio. - I own this text and am donating it for use. www.softsurfboards.com/MadeInPeru.htm. - Surfmac2004 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:
  - If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:
  - Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL.
  - Note: Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; copyright issues aside, your text may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  - from {{copyvio}} - CobaltBlueTony 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't bite Surfmac2004, he's barely more than a week old. Tell him how to fix this in his talkpage. I already raised some problems there but you might also help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A Copyvio. ** No similarity [http://www.waterwaystravel.com/peru/Chica.htmlSurfmac2004 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The paragraph in your article that starts, "Background Glenn Hening, a high school history teacher by profession..." is a direct copy of a paragraph on this web page. - CobaltBlueTony 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A Copyvio. ** That text in not supposed to be in the article in question..It is a reference on this page for discussion purposes only. Being a new user I put it in the wrong place. It has been removed.Surfmac2004 15:11, 12 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 deleted per CSD G1. Danaman5 08:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro points

Complete nonsense - creator consistently removes speedy deletion tags Mkativerata 06:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't even know why we are here. Should be a speedy delete. It's rubbish. WWGB 07:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - You said it, WWGB. Pure nonsense, so tagged, we'll see if it stays up. I've also given a friendly warning to the article's creator about removing speedy deletion templates. --Bongwarrior 07:52, 6 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 Thea Beckman, with history intact due to the amount of interest in a merge; whether and what to merge is as always an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinderen van Moeder Aarde

Not a notable book in the Netherlands or anywhere else. The book has not been translated into English, and as far as I know, not in any other language Andries 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Thea Beckman. Plenty of WP:GHITS, the series seems to be popular, but I couldn't find a reliable source in English about it. If there are sources in Dutch there is no reason we can't use them, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I only count 698 google hits in Dutch [19]] The literal translation of the title is "Children of Mother earth" in other words all very common words, so the quotes should be used when googling. Andries 11:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thea Beckman. Someone with dutch speaking ability may be able to reference this --Pumpmeup 23:06, 6 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 - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Background - On November 15, 1999, Burger King began to sell six different 23-karat collectible gold-plated Pokemon trading cards (Pokémon gold cards) for $1.99, with the purchase of its "value meals." -- Jreferee t/c 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold pokemon cards

Provides virtually no information, does not utilize capitalization, page title should have been "Gold Pokémon cards" (note the accent and the capitalization). I doubt there's anything in here that couldn't be better represented in the article Pokémon Trading Card Game. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a valuable addition to wikipedia. Not. Delete per nom and delete speedily.--Mkativerata 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Pokemon Trading Card Game. Though it'll need sourcing. -WarthogDemon 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokemon TCG per user:WarthogDemon. Other TCG's have special "shiny" cards and this one (if exists) isn't unique.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WarthogDemon Pumpmeup 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really anything to merge? The entire article consists of two sentences: "gold pokemon cards are rare pokemon cards made of metal. they have a golden coler ans are very shiny." —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Though it still should be included if and when references can be found and can be sourced. -WarthogDemon 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thought occurs to me that this article is referring to the promotional 24k gold-plated Pokemon cards sold by Burger King as part of one of their promotions for the Pokemon movies, which was more like a brick than a card, rather than an actual trading card. shoy 14:47, 6 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. Waggers 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hercegovačka (Podgorica)

Street doesn't pass WP:N, no sources listed. Street is not mentioned in main Podgorica article. Recommending delete, ~~merge~~ redirect at best. Keeper | 76 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. -Icewedge 04:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk

Delete and Weak Redirect to Podgorica. No sources listed, so how do we know it's a real street? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely trivial article, likely by someone who lives there (WP:COI).Inthegloryofthelilies 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn street even if something interesting is there. Carlossuarez46 04:55, 12 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. Cleanup/better sourcing may be required to prevent another renomination. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Williams

AfDs for this article:

This was considered here and deleted earlier; see link to the right. It was then undeleted at the request of the subject through OTRS. The request of the subject is not binding here, however, and it should be considered again here, not as a BLP concern per se, since apparently the subject is fine with it, but on the merits--notability and sourcing. My concern is that it does not cite reliable sources, but rather blogs and youtube pages. Chick Bowen 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there's this. I'll see what else is out there. Zagalejo^^^ 04:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article from the Thousand Oaks Acorn. Zagalejo^^^ 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep *takes a deep breath* Profile in Modesto Bee: [20]. Profile in smaller newspaper The Acorn: [21]. He's the host of The FIZZ on DirectTV. According to the Associated Press, he founded the "As One" YouTube Gathering: [22]. CNET write-up of the gathering: [23]. Associated picture: [24] He's a partner in the YouTube revenue sharing program, which might help him fulfill WP:WEB's The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. He's the 34th most subscribed YouTuber, which gives him some amount of name recognition, considering that YouTube is the 4th most visited website in existence, behind Yahoo, Google and MSN. But all that said, I wouldn't mind too much if we just merged the notable stuff to YouTube celebrities. His article attracts the ire of visiting Encyclopedia Dramatica editors, for whatever reason, making it a prime vandal target. Ichormosquito 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His YouTube username, smpfilms, gets over a million ghits, for the little that's worth. Ichormosquito 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to just|barely scrape by WP:BIO. Too many of the article's sources are iffy due to COI and should be better disclaimed, and the tone is promotional (as often happens with borderline cases trying to better assert notability, thereby crossing the line into spam). --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's the 32nd most subscribed person on YouTube with 35000 subscribers (subscribers are people who recieve an e-mail everytime he releases a new video). That puts him above other people with articles who are well-known only on YouTube such as Renetto, Nalts, and Emmalina, just to name a few --Mr.crabby (Talk) 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The arguments made at the Emmalina and Renetto AfDs apply here, as well. When determining the notability of YouTube celebrities, it makes sense to factor in YouTube prominence with whatever reliable sources there are, in the same way we would factor in film or television roles when determining the notability of an actor. So long as we keep the barrier set at a "fair" amount of coverage in reliable sources, which I think this article has, Wikipedia won't be flooded by YouTuber articles, while still being able to proportionately represent the YouTube phenomenon. Ichormosquito 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he appears to be notable. Needs better sourcing, and I'll try, too. Bearian 18:22, 10 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Slenters

Not notable as a philosopher. Reference links are all to subject's web sites. Perhaps notable in management - I am not qualified to determine that. 1 insignificant ghit on google scholar. Possible vanity article or article publicising his non-notable personal philosophy of science - a perhaps inappropriate guess based on the editor's knowledge of subjects birth date and nature of articles started by author. Anarchia 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Total vanity piece. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fastest, strongest delete possible NN and per WP:PROF. Good call on the vanity, too.--Sethacus 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as failing notability requirements. Also for using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, fails WP:FRINGE, a self published book (publisher: SLENTERS Research), google scholar turns up no citations, this seems to be the only web recognition outside the author's own site, a mere link to his site in a link list. Article is totally over the top "possibly the most comprehensive philosophy of science at our disposal today", and the references (all from his web site) lead to equally florid prose. Pete.Hurd 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give the author a chance to reply before invoking WP:SNOW. DGG (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's author appears to be MIA. He only edited for 3-4 days in August, all things revolving around the subject of this article I don't think it's likely he's going to be involved in this discussion.--Sethacus 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him or his book. —David Eppstein 21:13, 10 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 remake into redirect as per Peripitus. DS 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton River

The Edmonton River and the National Street Hockey League do not exist. A search upon Google does not bring up any hits aside from the Wikipage for the River. A search into the User's contributions revealed the National Street Hockey League's Wikipage was deleted. Shootmaster 44 03:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: Research indicates no such team and no such league. If it was true, it would be easily discoverable on the net. There is Street Hockey Canada and Canadian Ball Hockey Association but no mention of Edmonton River. --Mkativerata 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really should be prodded Pumpmeup 10:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. (Prod doesn't always work with newly-created articles; their creators have been known to check back.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up - then recreate as a redirect to North Saskatchewan River which is the river running through Edmonton. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 6 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 Nomination withdrawn. Will make it a redirect to Shenlong an existing article that some meat on it. Carlossuarez46 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual dragon

Delete declined speedy request based on WP:CSD#A7 - lack of assertion of importance - some think that dragons are not covered by that, but if this myth is notable, some reliable sources should be found, I can't find them. Carlossuarez46 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- appear to be some references, if you think something is a hoax you should provide a more convincing argument, not simply "it could be". Have you searched google for any of this?JJJ999 04:39, 6 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 deleted, no prejudice against recreation in quality form (though Industry in Orissa would be a better title). —Verrai 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Industries of Orissa

Look like an ads with no references Chris! _ct 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: Anything valuable and neutral in this article can be merged with Orissa. I agree this looks like government advertising. --Mkativerata 02:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and above (looks like an add). There is really no "real" information in here either. - Rjd0060 14:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:12, 8 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillie Molenaar

not notable, no references Chris! _ct 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a very brief google search provides references to support the claims in the article. The article needs to be properly sourced, but an award-winning film-maker is arguably notable. --Mkativerata 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references on Google do not exceed 5 sentences. -Icewedge 04:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its arbitrary to say that five sentences is not enonugh. Plainly, a Tanzanian film director/producer won't have much about them on Google. The point is the Google information verifies the claims made by the article and those claims establish notability (award-winning director of multiple films; produced a film selected for Cannes Film Festival). --Mkativerata 04:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per above reasoningJJJ999 04:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few minutes research shows that the subject is notable, and could have been used to find some references. Why does the nominator feel that Hillie Molenaar is not notable?--Michig 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her IMDB shows she was the co-recipient of the Golden Calf award for best documentary at the Nederlands film festival.--Sethacus 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you all think we should keep it, then please sourced the article. This article looks very unencyclopedic. Chris! _ct 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, someone needsto be bold and improve it though --Pumpmeup 23:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject appears to be verifiably notable through a cursory Google search (which identifies multiple reliable sources about the subject). RFerreira 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you find multiple reliable sources, could you please post them here? I have a hard time finding references for the subject. Chris! _ct 02:26, 7 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hines

non notable person, no sources, autobiography by user Spanneraol 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Semi-professional BMX rider failes notability criteria, even if it could be sourced. 'Artist' and 'musician' not enough either. --Mkativerata 02:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO /Blaxthos 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits on Google news, very few on Google, nothing but MySpace for the band, two or three different "Dirt Bros." but nothing I could find with his name, and the above-noted WP:COI problem. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:Bio. No google hits for the person and doesn't seem to be noteable anyway from what is written in the article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom, completely non-notable autobiography. RFerreira 00:18, 7 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 under criteria A7 and as a hoax. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anthony Fitzpatrick

Cearly a hoax, no sources, and no news of this 'host' on www.lmfm.ie PLAYWERT 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: No ghits; and even if not a hoax, no notability. --Mkativerata 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's hard to say whether or not this is a hoax. The author has made some borderline vandal edits, but some good faith ones as well. Non-notable in any case.--Sethacus 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Hoax or not, this guy isn't notable. Tagged for A7. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:47, 6 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. Carlossuarez46 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Command & Conquer: Renegade references

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Command & Conquer: Renegade references

A largely irrelevant page full of fancruft. A lot of it could be considered Original Research (WP:OR) and all in all, I doubt this warrents its own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Great example of original research. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's a reference or fact that can not be worked into the main article it should be part of any article.Ridernyc 02:15, 6 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. DS 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem Taylor

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game's third studio album. The only new thing this repost has is unsourced guest appearances. Spellcast 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most likely a hoax, but in any case should be deleted. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it fails WP:BIO. It does not have secondary and independent sources on the subject of the article. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4: A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted. - Che Nuevara 12:42, 6 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 per WP:CSD#G3, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Penfield

Obvious hoax, but can't speedy without bowing before the Great God Consensus... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. This doesn't even rise to the label of hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy Delete per CSD G1 A full length opera composed by a three-year-old. About la toilet. I need a few minutes to stop laughing. You probably should have speedied it for nonsense, but I guess it's better to be cautious. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. you guys are not fun. is it ok if i put "this is not true" at the bottom and then me and my friends can continue to edit it for fun?Allmyjunk444 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the note I left on Talk:Hannah Penfield and you will find the answer to your question. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:31, 6 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 close as clear bad-faith nomination. The nominator also AfD'd Derek Jeter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Jeter, which was speedy kept; as well as vandalized a user page. As a result, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. Acalamari 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck

Two reasons. First, it is vulgar and can offend and be inappropriate to view on Wikipedia. Second, its five fucking simple words: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY! --Mellespor 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, Wikipedia is not censored (I'm sure there's a shortcut I could be using for that) and second, a discussion of the theories of its etymology are outside the purvue of a dictionary but are for an encyclopedia. As a contovertial word, it's notable. —Quasirandom 01:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is far more than a dictionary entry, going back into the history of the term in English and other languages. It has patent encyclopaedic merit and is in no way offensive to the reasonable person. --Mkativerata 01:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to wiktionary. Martial BACQUET 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How in any way would this be a dictionary entry? It goes far beyond explaining the meaning of the word. Please explain. --Mkativerata 01:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response: This is just a word, not anything we can write a encyclopaedic article about. Etymology and words histories are in dictionaries, not in encyclopaedia. Martial BACQUET 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination Close this, user is a vandal-only, Special:Contributions/Mellespor Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note user has been indef. blocked--AF US CO 01:51, 6 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 keep as bad faith nomination devoid of any merit. TerriersFan 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Jeter

Vanity article, just about some overpaid and overrated player, and sorry to be a Red Sox Nation advocate but YANKEES SUCK - EXPECT MORE YANKEE-RELATED AFDS IN THE FUTURE --Mellespor 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Duh, one of the most famous baseball players ever. I hate the Yankees BTW. TJ Spyke 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close of this AfD The nominators position makes it clear that this is nothing but a bad faith nomination, see Special:Contributions/Mellespor; already reported to AIV for what it's worth. Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:31, 6 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. Waggers 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College

No assertation of notability. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN college. Page consists mostly of a course list (which isn't encyclopedic). - Rjd0060 14:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an article. Could be notable, but this is not claimed -- and there's nothing here to save. No objections to recreation, assuming sources and, uh, content are included. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If somebody wishes to clean up the article, these news sources might help. utcursch | talk 04:05, 10 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. That the article is in need of cleanup is not a reason to delete it. There are some concerns of this being a POV fork. If these concerns cannot be alleviated it may warrant renomination in the future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis

This article is a propaganda of Iran. Even some of the citations are fake and one-sided (mostly Iran sources). The origin of the Azeri Turks is Khazaria. So, it is definitely a POV. To prevent giving false information, I request you to delete this article.Tomyrys 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a "POV-fork" or some other article? -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed improperly done nomination [25], [26], [27], [28]. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that User:Zamkudi and User:Tomyrys are the same person using two different Wikipedia accounts in order to create the facade that there is wide support for the article's deletion. Please be aware of this fact and be cautious of any new accounts without any previous history which may appear to vote here. Dfitzgerald 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fork of Azerbaijani people. In it's current form it is OR, and whether or not the topic deserves a separate article in addition to Azerbaijani people is subject to discussion. I wonder what non-involved people think. Grandmaster 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this article in its current state is original research. However, there might be an argument for having an article describing the varying theories on the origins of the Azeri people. cf Race of Ancient Egyptians (although don't compare too hard, because there's an ongoing dispute there). I would recommend a move to Origins of Azeri people and a complete NPOV rewrite. - Che Nuevara 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article in its current form is in bad shape, and if there is any OR< people should ask sources for every statement made. Then either a source will be provided or the statement will be deleted. I made a section [[29]] and added five scholarly sources. The theory is expressed by such eminent historians Richard Frye, Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky,Tadeusz Swietochowski and Xavier De Planhol[[30]]. I just added four quotes from these well known scholars. Also added an Encyclopedia Britannica quote which discusses Caucasian and Iranian origin. These can be summarized (if there is no dispute about them) later, but now it just illustrates that there is some meat to the theory. So while there are sources with this regard, these sources were not present before the AFD. In its current form the article needs a cleanup to make it in a better scientific shape and also tags for any statement that is deemed OR. I don't it is a fork to Azerbaijani people, since the article discusses origin while that article is much more general and has a small subsection for Iranian origin. To put all the evidences in that article might overburden that article. The issue keeps coming up in Wikipedia but I think this article should be cleaned up. So a cleanup tag and any other tag that is necessary is good enough until it is cleaned up. Following up the discussion in Azerbaijani people, the major creator and editor of that article did not want to overburden that article with too much of the details (which is fine). That is why he linked that article to this article where the details were supposed to be provided. So the article just needs to be cleaned up (although the ADF poll was fine before the prior edits).--alidoostzadeh 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I can't agree with the current reason for deletion, as the nomination is just as POV as anything written in the article. I regret that Wikipedia has become a stage for articles like the one nominated here, but I don't like seeing whatever external politics that are motivating people spilling over here and creating AfD nominations. I support a rewrite or move. --Bobak 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current shape, it is purely selective history writing. All of those sources being brought by Alidoostzadeh are not compared and balanced by other sources, especially Cambrdige History of Iran, Audrey Altstadt and et al. If we could ever reach a compromise to make it a balanced article, I would vote for keeping it. --Aynabend 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should discuss the merit of existence of this article not the main contributor of it.--Pejman47 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have not been a contributor to this article. I just added some valid references, but the article can be cleaned up. --alidoostzadeh 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what Cambridge history of Iran says (which article and where). Pg 951 of volume 6 discusses the influence of old Azari (Iranian language) on the modern Turkish one. Audrey Altstadt is not even remotely in the league of Minorsky, Frye, Planhol and even Swietchowski. Her book has received some not so good reviews. Here is what the book description says:Audrey L. Alstadt makes use of both Russian-language and Azerbaijani Turkish-language newspapers, journals, and scholarly publications. Much of this material has never been used in any other Western studies. Altstadt's original research adds the Azerbaijani perspective on the two-century relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan. So her book is really adding the local political perspective and is not really encyclopedic when it comes to ancient history. USSR histography overall has been manipulated as discussed in the book Stalanism by Fitgerald. Alstdad lacks proper training in Arabic and Persian (which you really can't understand the history of the region without). For example claiming Caucasian Albanians to be linked to Turkic languages is invalid (she mentions it in her book which invalidates her the history section) and outstide of the realm of Academia. Or taking the story of Ra'esh (mythical Yemeni king who conquers Sind and Hind and Berber lands)and who fights Afrasiyab (who had gathered Turanians (later on identified with Turks)) on behalf of Manuchehr in Azerbaijan and turning it into real history is not really academic (the story being told in the court of mu'awiyah). She might be an okay modern historian but definitely not a good ancient historian. If you think the article is unbalanced, you can put a unbalanced tag and discuss it in the talkpage or balance it by creating a section with the other point of view from academic sources. But the article says it is a "theory". The statements from Minorsky, Frye, Planhol, Swietchowski, Britannica makes the article very valid. It would overburen the article of Azerbaijani people if all these valid soures (and more) are put in, thus Tombeyese references this article in order to make the other article's subsection succint. --alidoostzadeh 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, the tone of the nominator (not surprisingly a "throw away" account) is somehow like a propaganda poster (I omitted unrelated slogans). As Bobak stated, It is really disappointing to see that Wikipedia can be molested for political agendas.

(history of page as I remember): this page is one of the satellite article of Azerbaijani People, which is now a FA and has been appeared in main page of WP sometimes ago. There was two theories regarding the origin of the people, Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis and Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis which both of them was discussed at the main article in two different sections. For keeping the article short, the details of those two theories have been kept for independent articles, both of them are not POV fork, but I admit that both of them are full of OR. --Pejman47 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't understand if there is any problem with the text , then why it should be nominated for deletion as first step ? Please first read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and then chose the articles tobe deleted. --Alborz Fallah 11:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Dfitzgerald 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to any appropriate article through redirect. Iranian theory isn't the sole. I also agree with Che Nuevara. --Brand спойт 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this is a case where keeping the two theories on separate articles will work well. The two articles should describe the two prevailing theories in the intro. John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with those users who believe this article does not meet the criteria for deletion.Gol 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grandmaster that the article is a POV fork and OR in its current form. It should be re-written under NPOV and merged into Azerbaijani people. Deletion may be another possibility only if the current form is concerned. E104421 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC) P/s: In case of merger, this should also be applied to Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis. E104421 09:47, 9 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Chitnis

AfDs for this article:

This is one of the articles on subjects which I found to be inherently non-notable while on a look out for biographies of entities over India and specially in the soft-ware development sector. Most of the references quoted on the article are primary sources of information and cannot be deemed as "reliable" and "independent" (as per WP:BIO) since they are owned by the subject of the article themself. (e.g. atulchitnis.net, COMversations) [BIO says: The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.] Other sources that have a transitional mention of him as a subject seem to be related to the FOSS.in movement based in Bangalore, India (which is itself has not received any significant coverage). [BIO says: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander]. The BBS documentary source does not fall within the definition of a reliable source as per the guideline page. [From RS: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.] Neither is it intellectually independent of the subject. The "Livemint" link only talks about his affinity towards "rock music" and does not speak of any of his contribution towards the "open source" or "LINUX" software movement in Bangalore. All the other websites cited without the "ref" tags are not websites of primary information and cannot be termed as independent, reliable secondary sources. Atul Chitnis is neither an academician nor a recognised professional either in India or internationally. AFAIK, the rediff interview link is the only secondary, independent source of information from a reliable source, although which does have a non-trivial coverage, but which cannot be addressed as substantial. The above does not apportion a claim for notability on the subject of the article, since multiple indepedent and secondary sources of information are required. The secondary sources which are linked on the article are only trivial coverage on the subject. This article should be redirected and merged with FOSS. It appears that the subject of the article also has an active interest with his own article, from which it seems that Wikipedia is used as a vehicle for self-promotion. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: From Wikipedia:Notability: Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.

In particular, we must ask ourselves the question, would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collectino of information (which means that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just an information resource). Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The article was cleaned up after the initiation of the AfD. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The crux of my argument is that the subject of the article does not qualify under the conditions laid under WP:BIO as have not been subjects of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedy kept last time, and kept unanimously the time before that. This is the most thorough deletion nom I've seen in quite some time, and the nom doth protest to much, methinks. While the article certainly suffers sourcing issues, the notability claim is simply unfounded. "Would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?" An article about the developer of the first online service in India and the founder and coordinator of one of the largest open source conferences in Asia? I think the answer is quite clearly yes. Speedy keep. - Che Nuevara 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article was speedy kept last time, the reason was that there was apparent trolling going on, where somebody had created a singple-purpose account for disruption; which does not relate to whether the subject is notable or not. The non-notability claim is well-founded in my opinion, since the subject is not the creator of the first online service in India. He was the creator of the first "BBS" online service. He is not the founder and director of one of the largest conferences in Asia. He is purportedly the organiser of the largest open-source conference in India, where the open source movement is still in the primary / grassroot stage. This kind of work might attract trivial publicity, but fails the criteria of inclusion on Wikipedia. Apart from that, my other arguments have been completely ignored on the notability of the subject. You state that in a way that implies "you think [that] should be included", but our inclusion guidelines do not permit it. We are not here to discuss guidelines and policies for inclusion, but to see whether the guidelines permit the inclusion of the subject as an encyclopedic entry. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling last time doesn't change the fact that it was unanimously kept the time before that. This guy is clearly notable -- why are you pushing this so hard? - Che Nuevara 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't yet stated why you think the policies and guidelines say that the subject of the article should be included on Wikipedia. Stating that he clearly is notable does not make him notable. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus has already determined him to be notable. Nothing significant has changed since then.

Consensus can change. Please re-familiarise yourself with the concept of consensus. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is the founder of a large and significant open source conference as well as a pioneer in the Indian Internet industry.

OK, I concede the conference is significant, atleast in India; apart from that saying that he is a pioneer, requires appropriate citations. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If an article cannot be sourced, it should be deleted, but if an article is not sourced, the proper response is to attempt to source it.

Agree with you there, although this remains as one of the factors affecting the outcome of the AfD. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:BIO are controversial guidelines. Since Chitnis already unanimously survived an AfD based on notability, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate in at least some way that the prior consensus was flawed. In this light, your argument does not hold water.

Irrelevant. N and BIO guidelines have been stable since a long time now. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misquote and inappropriately quote guidelines. Your quotation from WP:BIO about whether notability is 'inherited' is not relevant at all, as Chitnis is not, as far as I'm aware, related to anyone else particularly notable, nor is such a claim made in his article. Your claim that "Wikinews [...] is better suited for present topics receiving a present burst of news coverage" is also not relevant.

And you are tending to interpret guidelines in a normative manner. Chitnis is only notable because he is related to FOSS in India. The subject does not become notable solely on the basis of appearing on news sources to comment on the open source movement. The notability guidelines require substantial (non-trivial) coverage on him and his work. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that Linux Bangalore "has not received any significant coverage" is just plain silly. (Note that that's only its old name!)

I concede. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you gutted the article and then tried to claim it had no sources casts doubt on this entire process.

To return the favour, that you are so vehemently inclined to include this article casts doubt on your involvement. The article has not been gutted, it was cleaned up, I invite you to review the history and include any important source which I might have missed out. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. - Che Nuevara 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You too. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God knows, I don't particularly like the man. And there's no shortage of controversy and not a few mailing list flamewars around him including a very long one I had with him some years back. But one thing he definitely is - is notable in India for the reasons User:CheNuevara mentioned besides having been around the Internet and BBS scene for several years now. Speedy keep, with possible edits to concentrate on what he is notable for (linux, bbs, the comversations column, the foss.in conference) rather than information about where he went to college and what his favorite bands are. srs 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to CheNuevara. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator in this deletion request completely gutted this article after nominating it for deletion. - Che Nuevara 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple gnews search netted 44 hits, including over 2 dozen in mainstream indian newspapers and Wired magazine.Baka man 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not the basis of establishing notability, however I do accept the fact that he has appeared in multiple news stories, where he has commented on the open source movement and nothing else. He has not received any significant (non-trivial) coverage on himself or his work anywhere. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable. And if open source does indeed catch up in India, the article will surely be relevant 10 years down the line. Antariki Vandanamu 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The major issue here is the nominator finds the subject to be "Inherently non-notable", since the article lacks non-trivial reliable and independent sources. However, a quick search reveals that there are plenty of references available. Ignoring the trivial one-line mentions in several notable (and independent) publications, here are a few of them: Interview with The Times of India, interview with Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, news article in The Hindu, article in Heise, interview with Rediff (none of these are one-line mentions, and all the publications are reliable and independent). If you feel that the article lacks good references, it's better to tag it with {{primarysources}} or {{refimprove}} instead of nominating it for deletion. Also, I don't see any evidence of the subject making any edits to the article, that can be deemed as "self-promotion" (as alleged). The article history indicates that User:Achitnis has made only five edits to the article, all of which are minor edits involving formatting, fact correction, adding a photo or tag: [31][32][33][34][35]. He seems to be more interested in Katrina Kaif. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I have met Atul Chitnis in real life, but there is no conflict of interest involved here. I've met him only once -- during FOSS.IN 2006, where we talked for a few seconds and exchanged a few words about the Wikipedia article on FOSS.IN. I am not involved in any of his ventures or his FOSS-related activities. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the subject has been mentioned in various news stories and has been interviewed. The information that most of the articles give about him is that he is the chairman of the "FOSS" or the head of "Exocore", and that was the foremost reason I gave for a redirect and merge to the FOSS article. Although, substantial coverage on the subject is not established, there are a number of trivial sources in existence which might make him border-line notable as per our BIO guideline. The article cannot in the current circumstances go beyond a stub. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned"? Did you read those articles that utcursch posted? They are primarily or entirely about him. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't read German and so you didn't read the Heise article. But this is real press coverage. - Che Nuevara 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am an active volunteer in DebianWomen, founder of UbuntuWomen, Linuxchix and some local Libre communities and have to agree with Zamkudi that the ref's dont provide his notable contributions to Libre software communities. Libre software is indeed catching up in India and if every contributor had to have a page on Wikipedia, narcissim would never wane. ---- Svaksha 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 15:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A New Hope And End Credits

AfDs for this article:

Very suspect notability (unlike, say, the Imperial March) and most are nothing but minor tracks on the soundtracks Will ^(talk) 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated

Droid Invasion Theme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vode An (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victory Celebration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rescue from Cloud City/Hyperspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial Starfleet Deployed/City In The Clouds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sith Spacecraft and The Droid Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Augie's Great Municipal Band and End Credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Star Wars Main Title and The Arrival at Naboo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A New Hope And End Credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Confrontation with Count Dooku and Finale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rebel Fleet/End Title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Main Title/Rebel Blockade Runner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Star Wars Main Title and Ambush on Coruscant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Will ^(talk) 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (or merge into a single article). JJL 19:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all For a lack of notability, and for being WP:OR. If someone reviews the songs in a reliable source at some point in the future, then recreate. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article per JJL. But if they cannot be merged, annihilate them. The author(s) have an intent of explaining a bit more about each piece within the context of a film, and could probably write a stronger article that looks at the relationship that the pieces have to the film and to each other. Mandsford 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:16, 13 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 Speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. Deltopia 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars opening crawls

Copyvio nightmare. Will ^(talk) 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:If these are needed, can't they go on the film pages? StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete move anything that should be kept to Star Wars opening crawl. JJL 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stars Wars opening crawl has been prod'ed - Che Nuevara 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY clear copy vio. WP:Speedy#G12 Deltopia 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Probable G12. However, even if you take the view that it's somehow fair use, I don't think this meets notability. (Are there reliable sources discussing each of the crawls?) Bfigura ^(talk) 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. MMSCV (massive multiple source copyright violation). RFerreira 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. This is practically the definition of copyvio. I personally found this useful; and the stupid text is always a bit off the screen, and it's interesting to see it all in once place. But still, not encyclopidic, or un copyrighted (word?) i ^said 04:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. An AFD nomination probably wasn't even necessary in this case; notifying any Admin would have resulted in the article being taken off. As it is, this article should go ASAP for copyvio reasons. (The only reason I'm not doing so right now is I do not know the procedure for speedy deleting an article after it has entered the AFD phase.) 23skidoo 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, the admins pay some attention to the AFD log and if enough people call Speedy, they will react. I'm not sure why they didn't this time (maybe they are enjoying their weekend or something similarly inexcusable), but I added the speedy delete template to the page, so someone will notice. 23skidoo, check out WP:SPEEDY for info and how to's -- and there's also an Administrators' Noticeboard which you can always use if an admin is needed for something urgently enough. They have strict rules on when you should and shouldn't use that noticeboard, but they also have a WP:Ignore All Rules policy :) Deltopia 21:10, 7 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 no consensus. While the deletion arguments are not very strong, neither are the keep arguments. This article is a good candidate for improvement with more/better sourcing to prevent a future relisting. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

A demo disc that was bundled with the GameCube and sold separately for $10.00. Contains four game demos and some videos. It is certainly not an exceptionally notable demo disc, and there is no other demo disc that could even remotely be considered notable enough for their own article, so why is this any different? Because it was advertised? Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete completely unnecessary, not notable. Djgranados 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as per Djgranados's commentJames Sugrono_{Contributions} 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criteria can it be speedy deleted? You can vote to delete, but it does not meet any of the criteria at WP:CSD TJ Spyke 23:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is far more notable than the average demo disc. For one thing, it was sold at retail. In fact, it actually managed to get in the Top 20 sales chart for a couple of months. TJ Spyke 23:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it was basically notable solely because a company wanted it to be notable? Nintendo advertised it and sold it at retail to increase sales for the GameCube and the games contained on the disc. Just because they put more effort into its success does not mean that it is notable. How do we compare it to other demo discs? Are these demo discs ever made available for sale? No. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a company wanted it to be notable, and they succeeded in that goal by promoting it heavily, then yes, it is notable. Melsaran (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJ Spyke. Like it or not, but this preview disc seems to be notable; it has been sold in stores, covered by game publications, and the article gives useful historical information. In other words, no compelling reason to delete this article. Melsaran (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was covered by publications solely because Nintendo advertised it heavily. Also, list one single reason why an article that is nothing more than a lead and three lists needs to exist? Also, why do we need an entirely unsourced article? It lacks sources to its success, it lacks sources to its reception, and it doesn't even acknowledge that it was successful or had any reception whatsoever. This article is comprised of almost nothing but describing what it is, not why it's important, and the fact that no one's updated the September 2007 notation to October 2007 shows that no one's even very interested in the improvement of the article, that there's no one person who's compelled to maintain the quality of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It was covered by publications solely because Nintendo advertised it heavily." It doesn't matter why the disc was covered by publications. What matters is that it was covered by several publications and that it is notable, probably because Nintendo wanted it to be notable. That the article currently has a WP:PROBLEM doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Yes, the article cites few sources, but so what? As pointed out in this debate, it surely can be sourced. Melsaran (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you saying that you're going to be able to expand this from a 0% unsourced two paragraph/three list article into a fleshed-out, fully-sourced article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJ Spyke! If it was sold at retail and was in the top 20 sales chart ^{[citation needed]} then this case is closed. Burntsauce 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Djgranados' comment. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review the debate before commenting. Djgranados said "completely unnecessary, not notable". The first isn't an argument, and the second has been questioned (as pointed out above, the disc probably is notable). Why exactly do you think deletion (speedy deletion, even) is warranted here? Melsaran (talk) 18:01, 11 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Texas)

Afd is also for a few other lists very similar to this one, so this is in the same case of the others. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you link to the others so that we can actually see a rationale for deletion? i ^said 03:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK 1of3 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much the same stuff as List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. Student7 23:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I lack the knowledge of this subject to post an informed "vote", however if this article is kept it will need to be policed constantly in order to ensure that not only are all names listed are properly sourced from major news organizations, but that the links themselves are still current given that many news-related links tend to either go dead after a period of time or go behind "subscription walls". This will also have to be policed contstantly to prevent the fivolous addition of names; I recommend the article be locked to all but admin-level editors with additions approved before being added (otherwise you could have kids adding names just to be "funny"). Failure to do any of this, particularly with regards to individuals charged or alleged but not actually convicted in a court of law, would become a major libel issue. Same recommendation goes for any similar article referenced above (or below). 23skidoo 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, violates WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article has been anonymized answering WP:BLP problems. Student7 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No it has not been adequately anonymized.. the details remaining are quite sufficient to identify the parties, including the victims complete with ages, and the names of the schools. this is an article with an agenda, and is the very antithesis of do no harm. It matches very well the definition of an indiscriminate list. I yield to none in my feelings about the subject, but combining material that would not individually pass muster into a larger article is a clear evasion of N and BLP. As i have already expressed my views on these articles, i do not want to personally take unilateral administrative action , but i would support anyone who blanked the content, or any admin who would agree with me, and delete the entire article as BLP An good article can certainly be written on the subject, without focusing on a few selected individual cases. DGG (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even were anonymity possible to everyone's satisfaction, listing every person of a particular type who has committed a particular crime just isn't encyclopedic - it's the basis of original research and does nothing to reflect the significant opinions of experts on the subject. We're not a database of cases from which to build theories or launch campaigns. -- SiobhanHansa 00:13, 9 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Florida)

AfDs for articles very simialr to this one. This would be the same case. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these articles are WP:COATRACKs for BLP and NOTNEWS violations. 1of3 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK - Ben 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am changing my vote after reading WP:NOT NancyHeise 04:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I lack the knowledge of this subject to post an informed "vote", however if this article is kept it will need to be policed constantly in order to ensure that not only are all names listed are properly sourced from major news organizations, but that the links themselves are still current given that many news-related links tend to either go dead after a period of time or go behind "subscription walls". This will also have to be policed contstantly to prevent the fivolous addition of names; I recommend the article be locked to all but admin-level editors with additions approved before being added (otherwise you could have kids adding names just to be "funny"). Failure to do any of this, particularly with regards to individuals charged or alleged but not actually convicted in a court of law, would become a major libel issue. Same recommendation goes for any similar article referenced above (or below). 23skidoo 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is anonymous answering WP:BLP. Student7 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid deletion criterion. Corvus cornix 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even were anonymity possible to everyone's satisfaction, listing every person of a particular type who has committed a particular crime just isn't encyclopedic - it's the basis of original research and does nothing to reflect the significant opinions of experts on the subject. We're not a database of cases from which to build theories or launch campaigns. -- SiobhanHansa 00:19, 9 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.

[1] PFF 2005

[2] Various - Dread Broadcasting Corporation | album reviews | musicOMH.com

[3] [1]

[1]

[2]

[1]