Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 17 December 19 >

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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings On Set

Kings On Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTE, nn content, it says in the first line :rumored to be" Tiptoety (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I read the lengthy comments below and looked carefully at the article. The number of single purpose accounts expressing "keep" wasn't encouraging nor that Coolguyfromwest !voted "keep" twice. Additionally, the "delete" arguments were detailed, persuasive and to the point, particularly Whpq's analysis of the citation/sources. Most of the article boils down to a general resume of Yash Talreja's career: positions he held, project teams he led, companies he worked for. The assertion of notability connected to the specific patent seems valid but he was also one of six names on the patent, not a clear individual assertion. The importance of the patent itself seems clear but with no secondary WP:V or WP:RS sources to interpret the patent's direct significance to online commerce and its history, the claim is essentially WP:OR. I note that the entire fourth paragraph of the article outlining the significance has no citations for its content, again suggesting WP:OR. Note: This was a complicated discussion. If someone feels I've misinterpreted the discussion or the evidence, please bring it to WP:DRV. Pigman☿ 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Talreja

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

Only claim of notability is one patent. No references to independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on getting more references. Please be patient.User:Coolguyfromwest 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a stub. It takes a bit to build the complete works of Mr. Talreja. ****--Leppykahn (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Leppykahn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

please dont delete there is more information now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.175.117 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the subject is not notable, there is nothing you can add to the article to save it from deletion. The article does not even mention what, specifically, the patent he received was for. One does not become a notable inventor by simply adding a minor improvement to an existing invention. --Blanchardb-MeMyEars MyMouth-timed 11:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: more details have been added for the invention, and other various links. Mr. Talreja even coined the term Artificial Imagination as part of his research done in the topic at University of California, Davis, a term which we are planning to define at wikipedia. Someone who invented a notable entry for a wikipedia has to be considered to be notable.

Coolguyfromwest (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment At one point, the article states, "Mr. Talreja’s contribution to the field of Electronic Commerce was recognized by grant of US Patent 6578015". To me this is not an assertion of notability. If I say, "Graham Bell received a patent with such and such number," I am not asserting Bell's notability in any way. However, if I say, "Graham Bell invented the telephone," now that is a valid notability assertion. To me, both this article and its talk page sound a lot like bells and whistles to give a man more notability than his achievements warrant. IF the Wikipedia community deems this man notable enough, then there is a thorough cleanup to be done to the article, with the question being, not, what else should we add?, but rather, what should we delete?. One exception though... the article should say in the very first sentence what Talreja's patent was for, and it should say so in no more than one line, with the word patent not used in that sentence. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, people are getting rather particular. I've seen many wikipedia articles that are much more stubby than this one and are not marked for deletion. (For instance: soy candles). Is this because it is an article about a person and not an object? Also, I've also seen articles where the person is notable for being someone else's relative, instead of being notable in their own right. These articles have never been marked for deletion. It seems that Mr. Talreja is being picked on for no good reason. I personally use Peoplesoft at my job, so now I must thank MR. Talreja for having a hand in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.177.27 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.20.177.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above argument falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category and only tells us which articles we should be discussing next at AfD. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are you telling us that Talreja developped Peoplesoft? If he did, we need the article to say just that. If not, you are actually telling us that it is not Talreja that is notable, but whoever it is that built upon Talreja's work. As for stubby articles, the example you showed, Soy candle, says all that needs to be said to establish actual and verifiable notability. The Yash Talreja article fails in that domain despite being much longer. As I said before, notability should be asserted in the very first sentence of the article. Otherwise most people won't bother to read the rest. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. The references provided in the article don't cut it. And a search reveals press releases but thing of substance. I am open to having my mind changed by actual reliable sources but I see noen in the article and can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above, especially Blanchardb. Notability, especially for WP:BLP articles, needs to be clearly asserted, early in the article, and verified by independent, reliable, fact-checked sources. These are non-negotiable when dealing with articles about living persons. In fact, BLP says that whenever an assertion is made about a real, living person that is not verified, it is supposed to be deleted immediately without vote, without consensus, and without prejudice. The claims made in this article are large claims. If Mr. Talreja "invented" electronic payments, as asserted late in the article, could I or anyone else find an article about him? I would think so, but I couldn't. Maybe I've missed something. Keeper | 76 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No personal offense intended, but your personal testimonials are not considered reliable resources. Keeper | 76 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The invention by Mr. Talreja of Methods, systems and devices of electronic bill presentment and payment is acknowledged and verifiable by the link to the entry in the USPTO provided in the reference. Since the Assignee is Oracle Corporation (again verifiable by the references provided), and Oracle has a product called Oracle Payments, (verifiable by another link) it is reasonable to assume that the invention is actually being used in the Product. May the reasons there are no other articles on his invention, is, that the magazine publishers refused to believe that someone called "Yash" and not Bill, Steve, Larry, or Graham could have actually invented anything notable? Despite the USPTO entry to the contrary? Harminder2 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors, and do not assume racist motives. That could be seen as very insulting. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modified previous entry to demonstrate my good faith on fellow editors. However, an invention should be considered verifiable based on the entry in USPTO and evidence of that invention's usage, not based on how many other people chose to highlight or ignore the inventor. We, at wiki are free of biases, but we cannot asume the same for the magazines. Harminder2 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)— Harminder2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your chain of reasoning may be correct oer may not be correct. There is no proof for verifiability. Oracle may have the patent but is not using it. Or using a part of it. but cannot just assume without prrof. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this may be too demanding on the authors. Do we require a signed affadavit from Larry Ellison that the company is actually using the patents it must have spent hundred of thousands of dollars of legal fee to file and receive (both the invention and assignment to the company is veirfiable), on the products in the same domain (verifiable), before we admit anyone else other than Mr. Ellison/Mr. Henley to wikipedia? Cocolee2 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: No, we do not need affadavits from Oracle executives. We need verifiable source indicating the notability of Yash Talrej. On claim is that this patent, in combination with the Oracle Payments product provides notability. I see several problems, but the biggest of all is that there is no documentation of your assumption. Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the product has survived the test of time, it is being sold for last 10 years and has been implemented not once but at many, MANY (thousands) of customer sites--it is not an internal project but a software product--and so there have been several very large and successful deployments. Would it help if we (me and my other co-authors) added verifiable, large deployments? Coolguyfromwest (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: added 7 references to field implementations; about 20 to 40 additional references can easily be provided. So our assertion is that (i) A key sets of inventions was made by Mr. Talreja (ii) that set of inventions is implemented in Oracle Payments (formerly known as Oracle iPayment) whose development was led by Mr. Talreja for first three releases (iii) Oracle Payment (iPayment) is a successful product which has been deployed at thousands of customer sites in last 9 years since its inception in 1998.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is interesting that the last three Keep pleas have come from single purpose accounts, as their first and only contributions. Keeper | 76 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I am the co-author of this article, and I do have other contributions to wiki so mine is not a one use account. While I would like this article to be kept, I will very humbly accept the wiki community's decision. Notable is ill-defined, and someone has already commented that parity with other people featured on wiki is not the definition we can or should use for determining notability. So in the absence of a definition, I will accept the community's mandate. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blanchardb, thanks for editting the article and cutting it to down to important stuff. I am new at writing articles and appreciate your assistance/ virtual tutoring. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.32.18 — 216.207.32.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP-KUDOS to Blanchardb for cleaning up the article and deleting all the fluff! Talreja is notable because he is working on some of the more interesting and current stuff. And things have changed since Graham Bell invented the phone, the inventors of at large corporations mostly remain invisible while the corp. makes more money. Cocolee2 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: To respond to Whpq's comment about doubts about the product's success, added 7 customer/field implementation references, anothr 40 are easily and readily available from a customer base of thousands of customers across the world. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You've missed the point. It's not if Oracle Payments is a successful product. It's the claim that because he is one of the names on a patent for electronic billing, that somehow equates with a significant portion of Oracle payments. In any case, I still fail to see any reliable sources in the article. Shall we go through them?
1. His website is hardly neutral
2. Lowes's special order page: says nothing about him
3. Is a press release which again is hardly neutral
4. A Peoplesoft performance paper: unable to pull it up as the connection times out, but what does it have to do with Yash Talreja
5. The Oracle Payments product page: makes no mention of Yash Talreja
6. An article about Oracle Payments in Oracle's own magazine: it's hardly neutral, and it doesn't mention Yash Talreja anyways
7. A powerpoint presentation which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
8. An Oracle press release that doesn't mention Yash Talreja
9. A web message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
10. A blog posting about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja
11. An Oracle hosted message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
12. Promotional literature from another company's integration to Oracle Paymements which again does not mention Yash Talreja
13. A press release from MessageGate about the appointment of two executives, one of which is Yash Talreja, but press releases are not independent reliable sources
14. A Televoke press reelease about hiring Yash Talreja, but again, press releases are not independent reliable sources
15. A unicode consortium listing which simply confirms that he is a member, but membership in such an organistion doesn't confer notability, since as far as I can tell, one just needs to pay a membership fee to join.
16. IIT Dehlhi Excellence Foundation appears to be an alumni network. Being a graduate of IIT Delhi doesn't confer notability.
17. The patent which lists Yash Talreja as one of the people on the patent. But a patent itself confers not notability.

So after going through all 17 reeferences, most are about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja. So despite all the references, I do not see how the article has reliable sources that can establish notability, and provide verifiability. And I've conducted my own searches and can turn up only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look, the references to Oracle Payments were added to prove that it is a successful product in repsonse to your specific comment Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)" (above). the references prove that the project was not abandoned ,shelved or used in a minor way.

I will definitely go through each of your point and cross link it with each of the wiki-definitions for verifiability, referencebility etc. and I agree that some of the referencability is two step (Talreja-> linked to a mega patent -> linked to an Oracle Product which is hugely sucessful) but I believe it not only meets wiki-definitions, but actually meet the legal criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt" :-)

However, I have a holiday to celebrate, (and probably so do you) and I think both of us have made our points, let's give other editors a chance to comment.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Interesting discussion. taking a clue from Blanchardb-HimHisEarsHisMouth, I went ahead and cleaned up the article. To be fair to the author, he is new and he tried to answer Whpq's challenge by adding references to the article, rather than quoting those sources here.

FWIW, after researching the things for a while, I ended up creating a separate article on Oracle Payments because I believe it's a notable product. I removed all blogs and press releases for Oracle Payment and added references which follow wiki's guidelines about being independent, neutral and verifiable.

I also removed all references to press releases and blogs in the Articles on Talreja, but included news/magazine articles (not press releases) in Seattle PI and "Windows and Door magazine" which I found at Google News--these are minor but do provide an independent, verifiable and neutral proof for Talreja's executive positions at those organizations which is part of the article, and as per guidelines quoted by Whpq, should be backed up by independent, verifiable sources.

Does individual (not corporate) membership of Unicode Consortium add to one's notability? It is a *very* famous organization, has a wiki entry and has *less than* 50 individual members (rest being all big Corporations such as Oracle Corporation, Google, HP and even governments such as India and Pakistan). I am personally impressed by that, but obviously, your opinion may vary.

I did not remove the link to IIT Delhi Excellence Foundation since it does provide an independent and reliable way for verifying author's claim that Talreja is an IIT Delhi Alum which itself is notable by some standards, though definitely not enough by itself to justify a wikientry. Here is the catch 22, unless every statement in the article is backed by a independent, verifiable source, it is subject to being shot down. However, if references are included which *just* establish that the statement made in the article is true and add to notability, but do not establish notability, it is then itself becomes a reason for deletion? Jennlopez (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Jennlopez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Oh, Whpq, I *was* able to download the .pdf file, it is a 31 page technical document which acknowledges Talreja as a contributor, and verifies that he was indeed an executive at PeopleSoft. It is verifiable and reliable; We have to believe that Talreja did not control the majority of such a large Corporation, so even though technically its not independent, in my book, it is. YMMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennlopez (talk • contribs)

KEEP: Participation in a key set of 52 inventions (verifiable by an independent, reliable USPTO entry) which has resulted in a very successful (success verifiable by independent, reliable sources) Product meets my definition of notability. No large Technology company recognizes individual contributors behind their products so Talreja is actually lucky to actually have a verifiable, even though a two step link. And yes, I believe that since the invention was assigned to Oracle Corporation, and the Oracle Payments debuted around the same time when the invention was filed, and the product has extremely similar characteristics and features to the patent, that the product is an implementation of the patent. (I spent time matching them)

So Unless we believe Larry Ellison or Jeff Henley personally invented everything coming of Oracle Corporation, world's second largest company, they should not be only two Oraclites on wikipedia.

Participation in construction and release of another great product m2o which is also successfully deployed at Lowe's and some other references under [[m2o-- and Individual Membership in Unicode Consortium is icing on the cake. and yes, even verifiable, independent connection with IIT Delhi makes one more notable in Silicon Valley then three published articles in some arcane journal.

No software developer/Technologist in the commercial software domain will have any stronger evidence then noted in this article, so unless we restrict wikipedia only to actors, writers, athletes politicians and academic researchers (who usually just generate a whole lot of paper, nothing useful), and outcast inventors of some of the most useful products and applications, we should accept this.Rajeev22 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Rajeev22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandahl 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personality clone

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

Unreferenced, original research Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, cannot be verified in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as original research -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now. Kudos to the author for continuing to work on the article, and I apologize for the community that your first talkpage message is a deletion notice and not a welcome message. I'll fix that next. Use the welcome message to link to helpful pages that could assist your writing, including how to properly cite an article. As it stands, the article still doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. This discussion will be here for a few days, the best way to keep the article is to prove that the term personality clone is widespread (not just Dr. Doolittle), notable, and verifiable in third party sources that explain what it is, why it's important, and such. Keeper | 76 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my opinion, the phrase "personality clone" does not really have any independent existence. It is merely one word modifying another, like "red book", and not a notable coining such as "red tide". As far as I can determine via Google, when the phrase is used, the writer tends to mean just what would be expected from the meanings of the individual words (and probably the phrase has been so used since the popularization of clone). The only unusual usage appears to belong to an item of computer software, Saberdata's "PC Personality Clone", but that is not the topic of this article. I sympathize with the author, and expect it will not be too hard to find numerous examples of the phrase in use, but suspect that it will be very difficult to show notability. Tim Ross·talk 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Abney

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

American football player who was on the books of the Baltimore Ravens and the Chicago Bears, but released by both without playing a game. Currently a free agent, according to the article. The only other information included is from his days at university. Non notable for never having played a game, and now seemingly unlikely to. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing to keep in light of the report of NCAA records. Note that none of this is in the article itself, and wouild need to be a bit more specific than a by-the-way mention of NCAA records with no details. As such I've tagged the article with {{unref}}. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krabby patty formula

Krabby patty formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable food product from SpongeBob SquarePants, no real-world application. Corvus cornixtalk 23:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging to Bikini_Bottom#Krusty_Krab? Bearian (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, delete away. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Huckabee

UPDATED the bio (LEAD) on Dec 19th, and would ask the Deletes, and Merges to reassess. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability - this is an entry about two relatively minor stories which are only notable because they involve MIKE Huckabee. The stories are briefly noted on Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign page. There does not need to be a David Huckbaee biography page. Also, the page contains no other information about David besides the two incidents. Paisan30 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely non notable. Even in the highly unlikely event that his father happens to lose the Presidential election because his son once, allegedly, killed a dog, that does not merit the son having his own entry. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, David Hucakbee's exploits are becoming fodder in his father's opponents' campaigns. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I can tell there are 3 possible guideline violations 1. Secondary coverage is trivial 2. Only notable because related to someone famous 3. Notable for a single event. I think a case could be made for any of these, but the fact is he is getting significant national press coverage for a number of past events, and because of this his notability is not only because he is related to someone famous, but because of the actions he has done in relation to that famous person. So I'd have to say keep. Joshdboz (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons said -- this guy was written about before the pres campaign. And there is nothing wrong with deriving fame from slaughtering dogs, and getting arrested at air ports. Think of his relation to Mike, as the icing on the cake. EvanCarroll (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the original nomination. Regardless of whether you accept all accusations at face value, notability is not really established by not being charged with a crime and then by committing a crime that the Little Rock police (in the reference for the story) call very common (this is Arkansas, everyone has a gun and there is no evidence that he was trying to misuse his weapon). He is clearly only "notable" because he's related to someone famous and, what's more, he's really only notable because this is an election year. Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I'd like to see this article gone, I think that the presumption of non-notability has been sufficiently rebutted by the citations included in the article. --Elliskev 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is only notable because he is related to somebody famous, in this case to Mike Huckabee. If the information given in the article deserves to be mentioned at all, it should be done in the main page for Mike Huckabee himself. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mike Huckabee- The issue is starting to get enough traction that it merits keeping the information if its presented in the context of his father's campaign, but it doesn't really warrant its own article yet. If further information comes in down the line, I wouldn't oppose it being split off again. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mike Huckabee. If and when David Huckabee becomes more notable in his own right, he can have an article then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bio does not add anything to his notability. A silly Arkansas State newspaper story from 2001; the fact that he was prom king; the fact that he's a mortgage broker; and interviews from his college years. Also, the fact that he has been reimbursed by the Huckabee campaign fund is not notable, unless there is some allegation of wrongdoing. Candidates reimburse people for campaign expenses all the time. Paisan30 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither incident would be notable if his name weren't Huckabee (and are only marginally notable as it is), so if the content is to be included it should be on the page of the only notable person to whom it is relevant, namely Mike Huckabee. A.J.A. (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the "updated" version and he's still not notable. My recomendation remains delete. A.J.A. (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bearian, are you sure we are talking about the same person? Even if he were to pass muster on "Likely to become more notable in the near future", unfortunately then - that point in the future - is the moment that you should say to yourself "Now this guy needs a Wiki bio". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to think of less people that claim, "if only it wasn't for his dad he wouldn't be notable". Who cares? Even if that was so, does it really matter? Someone isn't notable because they are member of a bloodline, they are notable because they have attributed sources all over the place, even if that is largely because of their bloodline. This guy has three sketchy and controversial incidents on his record, he is the son of a powerful man, has stated intent to go into politics, and as you said, "we have facts on him".
WP:PAPER. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We have no reason to remove this. COATRACK is not a policy for just this reason. There is no good reason to remove a well attributed, wikilinked article, because of some devout republicans opinions on notability. FYI: If someone garnishes enough attention to warrant numerous people to write about a single event, you will be hardpressed to find an admin to strike the article. In addition I can't see a reasonable way for you to merge information pertaining to David's college political track record and achievements into other articles. Take this scenario, what if he killed another dog, and what if he brought another gun to the airport.. Presumably he would get much more press than the first time around, would it then be notable -- because you can bet no matter how many K-9s die, each and every report will introduce David as the son of Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying he's only notable because ogf his dad. Then he would be notable, like Barbara Pierce Bush. My point is he's not notable. A.J.A. (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is a devout Republican? Me? That's funny. I am an Independent, and not a Huckabee supporter in any way, shape or form. Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to start a biography on his son based on a couple of screw-ups in his life. Nor do I think that a college interview shows an "intent to go into politics". If there were some indication that he was seriously considering that, it would be a different story. Paisan30 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:COATRACK. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete David Huckabee is nobody. The material touching on Mike Huckabee MAYBE should go on the campaign page or main page of Mike Huckabee. If the main page of MH, then preferably not in the criticism section of Mike Huckabee, but rather within the first full term subsection of the governorship. Summarize it. No more than four sentences, tops. But even then, I am not sure if it is notable for Mike Huckabee. Jmegill (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why summarize it? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. All sourced, notable information can go on an appropriate page. You agree the material touching on Mike Huckabee is notable, and yet you ask we truncate the information on the subject. Definitly not the Zeitgeist of wikipedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is that an entire biography of an otherwise non-notable person was constructed around ONE story in Newsweek. That is the only "sourced" story that has any newsmaking potential. Adding all kinds of crap about his misdemeanor arrest (not related to Mike), his college days and the fact that his dad's campaign owed him $1,000 does not make him any more or less notable. Paisan30 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO, "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." A.J.A. (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting, this is in reference to people creating articles for wives and such for what is generally considered blah-information. Such as birth date, death date, and children - things that apply to every human. If the person has done anything newsworthy in their life they are subject to a biography -- if the news has sketchy worthiness such as mentioned in one publication only then it becomes sketchy. Either way, neither of these two policies apply here.
If you have information about notable kids, then they get their own wikipedia page. Look at Cheslsea Clinton (!8 references), Neil Bush (17 References), Marvin P. Bush (2 refs), Dorothy Bush Koch (3 References). I haven't read any of these articles, but the same rules you argue here generally speaking shouldn't apply to them. Being related to someone famous mean you get the limelight, doing anything different means you get notability in wikipedia's eyes. EvanCarroll (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are children of Presidents, not candidates (I guess Chelsea is both). If David Huckabee did anything notable, it would be fine to have a page for him. Getting arrested for a misdemeanor and dismissed as a Boy Scout counselor hardly qualifies. And a single story in Newsweek does not change anything, even if someone suggested that his father helped him out of trouble. Paisan30 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell the difference between someone was dismissed from boy scouts, and someone who expelled as a camp councilor for torturing a dog; but at the same time, you differentiate between the chief executive of a nation, and the chief executive of a state, then you seriously need help. You're direction and arguments are laughable. You've failed to achive consensus, now kindly give up. EvanCarroll (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that kind of tone. I haven't insulted you, I've simply stated my arguments. I think it's clear that you are wound up about the dog torture allegations, which I certainly understand. I think that someone who would torture an animal should be getting some serious therapy. That has nothing to do with whether David Huckabee is a notable person. Paisan30 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep for the time being, but the best course of action here is to clean up List of The Land Before Time characters. Much of the information in each character's article is either trivial or fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a reasonable length article could be compiled from the relevant information in each of these articles. I will re-visit these articles in a month or so and unless they have gained real-world RS to prove notability, will redirect them to the characters article.BLACKKITE 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Littlefoot

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

Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no current assertion for dealing with the in-universe material which provide a combination of unnecessary detailed plot information resulting in numerous instances of trivia and/or fan speculation. I would recommend cleaning up the current elaborate character lists (characters, families, villains), expand them the right way, then cite its sources with real world information.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Cera (The Land Before Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ducky (The Land Before Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petrie (The Land Before Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spike (The Land Before Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chomper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruby (The Land Before Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Thicknose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sharptooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and many other people would agree that these articles, although could stand for improvement, are vital points of information to the Wikipedia. The Land Before Time franchise is a multi-million dollar opperation, so I think it is safe to assume that this is a popular article. user 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up, Do not delete I think it is absurd that you would get rid of these articles! Wikipedia is about information on subjects, and the Land Before Time is a popular franchise, and therefor is important to wikipedia repitoire of articles. I do agree, the articles could be improved, but these are important and should not be so blatantly deleted as an overall catagory.

Annonymous 16:52 19 December 2007

Huh? I didn't delete that article. Only deleted the part I was going to write down for each segment. If I did, I appologise for it was unintentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser Jr. Nutt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean up, but do not delete. I vote for keeping the character articles, but cleaning up and expanding them. There's no less reason for these articles to exist than there is for there to be articles devoted to other fictional characters.

On the subject of getting citations for these articles, surely the official website and DVD extra features could be used?

K00bine (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article requires real world context and for that it would need something besides primary sources. See WP:Plot and WP:RS. So in your short no it can not use just the official website and DVD as sources. Ridernyc (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep and cleanup. Same for all the other articles you nominated. cf38talk 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability is not the issue real context is. Ridernyc (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.   jj137 ♠ 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coleraine College

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

College page that doesn't assert any notability and provides very little information. Mikemill (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Silvers

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

PROD contested at DRV, the original PROD reason was a lack of notability. This would be procedural, but I don't exactly see how this subject meets WP:PORNBIO. Search engine tests were inconclusive because of a good amount of irrelevant hits. Coredesat 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, non notable element of a fictional film. Sandahl 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Divided

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

This article has no notability or sourcing, and as such is just plot repetition of the Wild Wild West storyline and has no notability outside of that article. As such, this is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choices (play)

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

Delete nn play by playwriter who was deleted as nn here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staunton Island Military Base (Liberty City)

Staunton Island Military Base (Liberty City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional military base. Article doesn't have any content beyond the list of two games in which the base has appeared. Pagrashtak 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special triangle ratio

Special triangle ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an interesting try, and it kept me happy for an hour checking it out, but I'm afraid it's rather something made up one day (the few Google hits are not about this), and the conclusion is wrong. There is an infinite number of such triangles, for any value of φ from 1 to the Golden ratio (1 + √5 ) / 2 = 1.618 approx.; and they are not particularly special or interesting: not worth an article. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree: delete, as it does not seem to have an autonomous existence out of this article. Goochelaar (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google shows no evidence this exists outside of Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources found (in article, or on mathsci), and it seems unlikely the original had a reliable source, since the main conclusion appears to be false (per nom; one is just finding solutions x=a/b=b/c to x-1 < 1/x < x+1, and both x=1 and x=3/2 are clearly solutions, but the article claims a unique solution x=1). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just an exercise in high-school math, and the solution is not even correct! And, even if one were to fix it, it still would not cut the mustard. I mean, one can make up gazillion such exercises — why would they rate an article, unless there was some literature behind it to establish notability? Turgidson (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aaaaargh! on a second look, I am kicking myself - this is dead simple and doesn't need trigonometry. The question is, can we construct a triangle with sides 1, φ, φ2 ? and the answer is, yes, we can make a triangle from any three lengths, provided only that the sum of the two shorter sides is greater than the third side, 1 + φ > φ2, the limiting case being 1 + φ = φ2 which gives φ = (1 + √5 ) / 2. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's when φ < (1 + √5 ) / 2 that there is a non-degenerate solution with φ ≥ 1. And if we allow φ < 1, then φ2 : φ : 1 = 1 : ψ : ψ2 with ψ > 1, so we get the same shape as one we had with φ > 1. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense. The bottom-line conclusion of this article is that only the equilateral triangle is a solution to this equation. Obviously false. Now a question is whether some revision of the article could save it. Should there be an article about triangles that solve this equation? Maybe if some interesting result concerning such triangles were given, that would be the case. But in it's present form, the article is worthless. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 11:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-prime

Super-prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term with dictionary definition. A Google search [2] finds many different things called "super-prime" but none of them appear notable enough as an article subject, and our definition seems rare. The source is a programming exercise. I have also seen such primes called prime-index-prime, but not enough to be notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After looking at the subject a bit more, and after making a couple of edits, I'm not sure this is the most appropriate name for the article: Prime-index primes seems more accurate and descriptive, or perhaps, Primes with prime subscripts (as in the original article by Dressler and Parker, and in the OEIS). One can also give a recursive definition of prime-...-prime index primes, and also palindromic-index primes, etc. Maybe it would make sense to rewrite the article from a more general point of view (various subsequences of primes, with indices given by some rule involving primes, or some property of numbers)? There are a couple of refs out there that I put in (Fernandez, OEIS), but it would be good to see first whether there is something more substantial (say, listed on MathSciNet, or available on the arXiv) before going out on a limb. Any suggestions? Turgidson (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Face

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

A disambig page that has a broken link to a non-notable jazz musician and a link to an article that doesn't mention the subject of the disambig page Mangostar (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by me because of BLP concerns. We can't have an unsourced article about a (potentially) real person calling him a murderer. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damond Meekins

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

This article is almost verbatim for the page on serial killer Richard Chase, including dates, victims and associated literature/media- a Google search for Damond Meekins pulls up a 1up page (1up.com) for a 22 year old male living in Richmond, VA - could it be a personal page meant to mirror that of a serial killer's? I'm new to this so I'm open to suggestions! Diggsjj (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will MacKinley

AfDs for this article:
Will MacKinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A self-published author (see publisher details at amazon: [3] and the publisher's website [4] who is insufficiently notable. Also, a probable copyvio of [5] (a bit more complicated than a simple copyvio though)so will be sent to WP:CP if not deleted here. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm not an admin and didn't see the first creation, I didn't know whether it was substantially the same article. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oddly, Suckeriddy, the author of the article has written "I do hold copyright on this artical" on its talk page [6]. Doesn't seem to grasp the point about Wikipedia. As the article is likely self-written, I can only hope that the spelling is better in his books than on the article's talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4, as substantially unchanged re-creation. Jeez, I hate having to !vote twice in one month on the same load of crap. If this is re-created again, it should be salted. Deor (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The issue seems to be whether patents confirm notability and reliable sources rather than whether or not he is notable. If there's been prior discussion on this topic let me know, otherwise now would be a nice time to look into this. Wizardman 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Lakhovsky

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

No reliable sources. Google Scholar gives a lot of patents (not acceptable as sources), and index-links [A few journals get indexed by the usual sites, but are not notable enough for anyone to go through the bother of giving abstracts, etc. So you just get the journal, author, and title listed.] There's nothing we could use to make a balanced, encyclopædic article. I suppose we could just cut it down to a permanent stub or something, but I was of the impression we didn't like to do that. Adam Cuerden talk 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The patents themselves aren't evidence of the utility of the patented device, but the existence of the patents, and the modern patents building on his quakery"work" speak to notability. Mykej (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mere award of patents does not prove notability--most patents are never exploited Notable quacks are of course notable, but there is no evidence of this either. Minor and unimportant pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patents only really become notable if they are found to be enforceable. Evidence for that would be if substantial royalties were paid to the inventor or if a court decided in favour of the inventor in a dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to err on the side of caution. Scientific credibility (Lakhovsky seems to have none) does not equal notability (Lakhovsky seems to have a little). There may not be anything online to make a good article of this, but there may be other sources. --Lockley (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The claim "no reliable sources" cannot be correct. Patents are legitimate sources (though not evidence of notability). The subject's published articles are also a legitimate source. Nor is it appropriate to object the fact that Googling produces lists of articles on subscription-required sites. I am not qualified to comment on the subject's notability, but the answer to a dearth of cited sources is to tag it for citations to be provided, not to tag it for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Wright

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

The article claims that this actor is a television star, but I can't find any reliable independent sources to verify that she meets the notability criteria. Since it's been speedied and recreated several times, and since it does technically contain an assertion of notability, I thought I'd run it by the community. Whad'ya think? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is a genuine article about a young television actress it may be seen as un-important but as people keep adding it and it just gets deleted i think you should leave it on just for sakes otherwise you are just going to have to be permanetly deleting it ,which is a waste of wikipedias time beacuse at least the information on this page is true (well hopefully) and more reliable then on many other pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxiccixx (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Xxiccixx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as non-notable actor; one single Google hit associates her with the show she apparently appears on, and there appears to be no other reliable sources available. Considering the statement of intent to keep reposting above, a dose of salt might be in order, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP seems to be the ruling guideline here. In short, we need to get this right, and if it might be the invasion of privacy of a young actress to research the material to expand the article, we should delete, and unless someone can dig up a published interview or the like about her, I'm going to presume that the invasion of privacy would apply, and vote delete. This is not meant, and should not be taken, as a slight to the subject of the article - we just don't want to get it wrong, and either invade her privacy or risk vandals coming along and hurting her reputation. [Crossposted to talk page] Adam Cuerden talk 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searches of the BBC site (linked to in the article) give no information about her, and as Adam Cuerden says - it may not be in the young lady's best interest to have a page about her on wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable actor. The article says "Wright has starred in BBC Children's show, Xchange", but checking that article brings up no mention of Wright, despite what looks like a comprehensive list of stars. If the author can come up with some reliable sources to demonstrate notability then that's fine, but otherwise, it should go. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable actor, no sources to be seen. Possible hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn'tall that much information on Xchange up on the BBC site. However, an older revision gives her role in the Lion King musical as "a lion cub". This probably means that A. she's quite young, and B. "starring" is a bit of an exaggeration in at least that case. If she's as young as that makes it sound, I'm really uncomfortable with invading her privacy like that - it's all very fun for now, but bad things could come of it later. Adam Cuerden talk 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Pietrei Mici River

Valea Pietrei Mici River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For some reason this article was flagged for deletion indicating that in does not meet notoriety conditions. The Wikiproject Rivers specifically indicates that there are no such criteria applicable to rivers and that there is no minimum size for a river to qualify for deletion. I would kindly request you to delete the tag which is incorrect. Afil (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Major geographical features like rivers tend to be notable. A Google search indicates that sources are out there to verify that the river is real, but they are not in English. As for dicdef, the article is a stub for future expansion when an editor gets to it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This "major geographical feature" generates 5 hits on Google. All of them from wikipedia. That such features "tend to be notable" does not mean this one is. Policy is not about whether the river is "real" if it isn't notable. It isn't. There is no assertion of notability of any kind and no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming you did a google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici River." Most of the sources are in Romanian (as the river is located in Romania, this shouldn't be a surprise). The word "River" is not Romanian. A google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici" shows 102 hits. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the first one, a whole paragraph is dedicated to this subject, that's more than a "passing mention" and I don't know if the 2nd one is a blog. Here's another more than "passing mention" secondary source [9].--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that "first one" where a "whole paragraph" is supposedly about this river, I just don't get it. The name is mentioned once, in the second of four sentances. Several other proper nouns pop up. With no translation and no knowledge of reliability, I cannot see how that is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".
The new source you list again uses the name once, in with a laundry list of other proper nouns. Again, we are left to guess as to whether this is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".
Mdsummermsw (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I have read WP:RSUE and nothing there says that non-English sources are not considered verifiable: "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was referring to "Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."
To me, this one sentance article could easily be merged and redirected with no loss. As it is, the article is pretty much a dead end, with nothing I've seen hinting that there is more content to come. Looks like the article, such as it is, is going to end up as a "keep". My next comment seeks to solidify the "why" into coherent policy or a guideline. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "why" is geographical features such as rivers are considered of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you, but they are to scientists, geographers, scholars or any other person interested in this topic. These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker. That is what is so good about Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for useful information. And I take issue that this articles is a "dead end." What towns does it run through? Does it supply water to any of them? Does it provide power? What is the human and geological history of this river? Over time, likely Romanian speakers or people with knowledge on the topic will add to it. Wikipedia is a never ending process and it takes time, sometimes years, for articles to really take shape. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The Valea Pietrei Mici River is a tributary of the Timişul Sec de Jos River in Romania." Not familiar with the Timişul Sec de Jos River? "The Timişul Sec de Jos River is a tributary of the Timiş river in Romania." Don't know the [Timiş river]? "The Timiş River or Timişul Sec River is a tributary of the Ghimbăşel river in Romania." And the [Ghimbăşel river]? That's a big one: "The Ghimbăşel River or Ghimbav River is a tributary of the Olt River in Romania. It is formed at the junction of two headwaters: Pârâul Mare and Pârâul Mic." What towns do they run through/supply water/provide power/geological history? You'll never know from the dicdefs here. The article is a "dead end" because all of the information in these four articles could easily be dumped into Olt River article with no loss of information at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite! Should articles like this one expand (but to do that they first have to be KEPT!!!!!!!!), one could learn on which side (left or right) are its tributaries, where is its mouth, what pH the water has, what mineral content it has, etc. Moreover, each river may have its own (unique) biology: fish and crustaceous species, aquaphile insects, etc. You could also learn what the VERY NAME "Valea Pietrei Mici" means!!! And a lot more usefull stuff! Got that?!? Raborg (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Rivers. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian once again.  :-) (jarbarf) (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To nominator: Read the following articles for God's sake: Encyclopedia and Wikipedia. So, imagine this, you`re a f*king Geography student/teacher/whatever or you simply want to know what the f* this "Valea Pietrei Mici" you`ve seen mentioned on a postcard/in a book/tattoed on your girlfriend`s ass/etc. What do you do? To fellow contributors, I apoligize for my my foul mouth. Btw, check out the "attention seeking methods" part here. Raborg (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your comments on the subject. I was looking at the reliability issue and I am familiar with what wikipedia is and is not. The tattoo on your girlfriend's ass could be explained by reading the article that "Valea Pietrei Mici River" could redirect to. Failing that, you might ask her. In Romanian. The concensous here sure seems to be "keep". I invite all of you to watch User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Rivers and/or my talk page for attempts to specifically outline something ranging from the proposed "all geographic features are notable" to "regular notability rules apply". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High

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

No external notability, unreffed. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep being one of the main settings for a worldwide syndicated TV series, yes it lacks sources that confer real world notability and as a consequence would fail WP:FICT, but I'll go with common sense instead.RMHED (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Library article has a lot of content that would be better suited for a buffy wikia than wikipedia. Losing this and merging the rest would solve the fansite and notability problem of the Lib article, and would help another Buffy article to become stronger. – sgeureka t•c 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense, though as it stands the Sunnydale High article will stick out like a sore unsourced thumb on the Sunnydale article. Hopefully this can be remedied. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Merge as above,if the suggestion is to merge the library article into the one for the school, and keep the present one expanded with the additional content. It is one of the key locations for a very important series. DGG (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a little surprised that this article was nominated and not Sunnydale High School library. I could accept merging the two or deleting both; having an article on the library but not the school would seem a little odd to me. I'm not stating a preference for merge/delete just yet as I haven't had time to look at the quality of sources or consider the arguments. --kingboyk (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim - the library article should be merged here and the whole trimmed. Not having seen the series, I have no ideawhat else needs merging, but doubt the merit of having multiple articles on a single TV series.


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

The result was delete, though if omeone wants to make a redirect that's fine, I personally don't see a need for it. Wizardman 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sick And Tired (Comedy Special)

Sick And Tired (Comedy Special) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, but more important, utterly non-notable. A comedy special that made it to DVD is not exactly encyclopedic material. Biruitorul (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Gardens

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

Delete another nn building under construction in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 11:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sama Tower

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

Delete another nn under construction bulding in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Residency

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

Delete another nn under construction building in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep.   jj137 ♠ 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Tayer Tower

Al Tayer Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete another under construction nn building in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damas Tower 2

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

Delete nn future building in Dubai. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Habtoor Tower

Al Habtoor Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a nn future building Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only a stub for a potentially significant structure --OOODDD (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xilisoft Corporation

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

I believe this is a non-notable company. Original author removed a speedy notice and a prod notice without adding any documentation of notability. Notability is sort of asserted, but not from a reliable source (cite is to the company’s own website). I spent a while looking for references, and found only the company’s website, and reviews on software download sites. Since prod was contested, bringing it here. barneca (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Graffeo

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

Appears to be a hoax, Google turns up nothing for a Simone Graffeo, and all hits for "Moj Evropa" are unrelated. User's only other edits are self-reverted vandalism to Billy Ray Cyrus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Henry

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

Prod contested by the article's creaton and only editor. Non notable musician, no real assertion of notability, only sources are his publicity materials Dawn bard (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. However, I'm going to redirect this to Mafia, because it's such a wretchedly bad article. No prejudice against recreation with decent sources and citations, however. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Mafia

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

Almost all of the article is completely unreferenced; one of the given external links mentions a punjabi mafia [10] only after calling them gangs for the entire article. All the references given are to incidents in Canada mostly attributed to gangs. One other reference does mention an Indo-Canadia mafia [11] when talking about a particular case. I believe even if stubbed, this article doesn't meet notability standard and no other references can be found to ever make this article anything more than a few sentence stub. Shell babelfish 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and make into a stub. Most of the information in the article would be difficult to verify, at the very least. However, as a stub, this should not be a problem. I believe that enough sources can be found to easily establish notability with a little searching. For example, try this and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We will post more External Links from only Punjab. and Drug Lords from Punjab. its nonsense to delete Punjabi Mafia cause its not only reffering to Canada . PUNJABI MAFIA IS WORLD WIDE. including in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Canada, England , America, South America etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending refs of actual "mafia" type org, not just random Punjabi bad people. We can always delete it later if no real references show up. Mykej (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least make it into a stub. Because of the very nature of the subject there can't been too many citations for it. Some fo the more fantastic elements could be removed, and it could be noted that such and such families are 'sometimes believed to be connected to the underworld', etc, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the Punjabi mafia. Heck, according to lots of people, there is no Italian Mafia either. Nygdan 12-19-2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As touched on in the nomination, there is little to no information supporting the idea that there exists a principally Punjabi mafia-style criminal organization. Isolated incidents of gang violence and other miscellaneous crimes committed by people sharing a common ethnicity do not a mafia make. tgies (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a member of the Punjabi community, I can assure you first hand that there is no such thing as the Punjabi Mafia and that it is sort of a humor and pride issue that keeps a few young men of the Punjabi community in Canada refering to themselves as the "Punjabi Mafia". The fire has further been fueled by Canadian media who having encountered such terms in Punjabi chat rooms, have added a sort of romantic and notorious element to the unsolved murder cases in the Indo-Canadian community. I have looked at all the references provided in the article and none support this notion of a "Punjabi Mafia" and are all isolated incidents, some of which may be gang related. This claim of an international underground network of Punjabi families involved in mafia type organized criminal activity and drug trafficking is also completely unsupported. It is true that Punjabi families in Canada and the States do tend to belong to an affluent and wealthy upper class (this can be supported by Census data), but this does not in any way indicate sophisticated criminal activity as implied by "Punjabi Mafia". This page appears to have been created for the amusement for a few individuals in the Punjabi community who are trying to propagate this notion of a Punjabi Mafia. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia should not be used for this type of propaganda. Only entries supported by solid citations belong here. Guneeta (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punjabi mafia officialy originated in Punjab. we can post more external links but we are just posting the most recent activities. many old articles have been lost but i am posting from a Toronto view not Vancouver, infact Vancouver is the original base for Punjabi Mafia in Canada. so if anybody is from Vancouver post local Punjabi Mafia activites in your area to save article.

    The following is only from Toronto and recent activities. sorry i cannot get intouch with the old articles but will keep you informed with recent activities from now on.

  • Lets not forget the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 << Wiki External Link. Lets not forget the Bombing of Air India from Vancouver and many many Gun Shot Executions were taken place to prevent testamonial.

    Air India Case is also still going on upto Today. many victims in Toronto were also accused and executions were also taken place in Toronto. But still no arrests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 2007-12-20 01:48:59

+++++++ If you have more links to post, then you should certainly include them. The whole claim for deletion here is that the article isn't well referenced enough - Nygdan 12-20-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Tweezy

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

WP:HOAX. I went to Belmont. I live across the street from Belmont. I was searching for some additional notable alumni to add to the Belmont University article and came upon this. Wright-Maddox is a residence hall. The basement is dorm rooms. This is some kid's dorm room. How it's stuck around this long is kind of shocking. SmashvilleBONK! 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Freedman. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberti

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

Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article appears to be a restatement of a legal term. Recommend transwiki to wiktionary or establishing notability and content that is encyclopedic. Ra2007 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtHomeNet

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

Contested PROD. Created by a single-purpose account, possible conflict of interest. There are a few possible sources out there, along the lines of this, but nothing very substantial. The company does not appear to meet the corporation notability guideline. Chick Bowen 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • From "Notability: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." The company has estbalished itself as the predominant provider in this niche market, and Susan Sanders has been featured in an article in USA today in the past. it is unfair to subject smaller companies without huge PR budgets to the same "Sources" requirement as larger companies...thus the very idea of "Notability" is subject to the interpretation of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gentleman above said "nothing very substantial"...what does "very substantial" mean? All of this is subject to interpretation. It is unfair to hold a smaller company to the same standards as an IBM or something, where the press will be willing (free of charge) to interview, research and report facts on a company. Susan Sanders has been consulted by management firms, and is considered an industry expert on the growing genre of community websites [12] This from the Washington Post .Com site about the USA Today Article. [13] This is the actual USA Today Article [14] Trying to apply a universal standard to everyone business of any size is rather unfair, why not wait for someone to attempt to disprove with facts the existence of this company and any of the facts about the market it operates in and the position it holds? There have been many reports on this business, but a great deal of them are not online, or not online anymore. Do you have a suggestion of what would be a noteworthy soruce to validate the facts on our page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and probably advertising. I've already had a long discussion with Edenrage about the difference between notability and verifiability, pointed out that the above sources s/he is citing are just passing mentions, and asked for sources that show notability to be added to the article. If someone who works for the company, as Edenrage has indicated s/he does, can't find sources to show notability, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to happen.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In notability it states: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations"
Yes, we have had this discussion Fabrictramp, and I appreciate your help. The issue I have is not with verifiablitity. I put the references there becuase it couldn't hurt. I am trying to locate other sites that host the other articles and references made to the comapny and its founders. If we are discussing whether or not the company or what it does is notable, you need not look very far to see that the niche market of community websites is growing, with some states such as California as of Jan 1st passing laws now that mandate that homneowners associations post their agenda 4 days prior to a board meeting into a forum where it is accessible by all. It was once unheard of for community websites and the technology to pioneer software specifically for them would be a mainstay, but now it is. That is fact. For wikepedia to ignore this would certainly not be fair given the plethora of useless information about pop icons and obsucre cultural references denoted here. Again, we are all at the mercy at whether or not someone interprets this companies' role in that industry and the industry itself as "notable". An argument can be lodged either way. the fact is the large scale refereneces you want in TIME magazine and Wallstreet week don't exist yet...but should that mean the company is not deserving of a listing? Notability can be estbalished through other means than 3rd party articles even by it's own definition on wikipedia...and like most of the other definitions, there is room for interpretation and it clearly states that a subject can still be notable without the commonly accepted things. Advertising is just that. Fact is fact. Everything in this article is a verifiable fact, so while I agree there should be a debate on notability, the idea that it could be construed as advertisement was already suggested by you as not an issue per our previous chats on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it quite clear before I was new at this process. I had no idea the page "User Edenrage" had the same content as the profile in question. that was obviously a mistake, as what would the purpose have been of putting that under my own profile entry. It has been edited accordingly. I have edited other wikipedia pages in the past, including Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero, and a couple of others, but keep in mind I am new to this process. I have already included at least one secondary source, and more are coming. Instead of just saying "delete", i appreciate the editors who are giving sound advice on how to make the page better and fit all of the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some of the comments on the debate for "ATHOMENET"... if my account were a single purpose account, I would not have, nor would continue to make edits on other pages. (See Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero,Fishbone, Terence Trent D'arby, Regina Carter, not to mention "Snapple" etc... and whatever else I do henceforth....)

The only requirement in COI that is met is that I have an affiliation, but cleary in COI it does not suggest that simply because of that affiliation that I cannot make an entry. With respect to neutral point of view, the article is clearly unbiased.

Much like the editor "Athenara" stated, is it not better to let an entry stand on the right hand side of "barely notable" as Athenara put it? If editors continuously make the decision to choose what they personally feel is notable, that takes the power out of the hands of the encyclopedia readers and contributors and defeats the spirit of wikipedia's purpose as an online resource does it not? and as for Spam or advertising, information is just that. There is no advertising here...the article states the purpose of the firm, what they do, and how it has impacted a growing niche market that will only continue to become larger and more well known. HOw many third party sources are needed to establish "notablility" Is it 2, 3, 10? Is there a concensus, or if there was only one in TIME LIFE magazine would that be enough? Again, if the spirit of wikipedia is to punish any fact, entity, or subject that does not appear what is obviously a very non-descript (depending on the editor's point of view)# of publications of various notability themselves, then 1/2 of the things listed in Wikipedia should not be here. I appreciate this forum to debate this topic, and I wish that users like me as well as editors could all weigh in becuase the people that are truly effected are often times oblivious to these debates that have the most effect on the people who look to wikipedia for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as recreation of deleted content (G4) by Fabrictramp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. Powers T 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squacketball

AfDs for this article:
Squacketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted before, see March 11 (I don't know how to link to the exact original AFD. It suffers from the same deficiency as before: non-notability. Archer3 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Quick (1809-1894)

Joseph Quick (1809-1894) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Search on ("Joseph Quick" 1809) indicates that this article may be a copyvio, also unsourced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Keep. Sourcing is no problem - Google finds his obituary, and a search on the specific phrasing doesn't suggest copyvio to me. The Dutch Wikipedia also has a sourced entry. However, though his work was quite wide-ranging, his notability seems a bit borderline: he isn't in the ODNB and didn't merit a Times obit. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've added a ref, and corrected the death date (his obit is clear that it was 1894 - the 1910 was probably his son). Hope this hasn't screwed up the AFD linking. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, thanks! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'd make sense, though I don't know what his canonical name might be. This Joseph Quick and his son had a firm called Joseph Quick & Son, so "elder" and "younger" is a possibility (the Dutch Wikipedia calls this one Joseph Quick senior and his son JQ junior). But the elder's father was also called Joseph Quick, and all three were civil engineers... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why it was created with the dates then! If they all had the same name and were all civil engineers the existing name makes sense after all. Nick mallory (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems to have had a major revamp, and all of my objections to deletion seemed to have been fixed, if no one objects I would like an admin to close this article debate as "Keep". VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III Eternal World Rankings

Warcraft III Eternal World Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not suitable for Wikipedia, this seems to be a record keeping of some Warcraft III tournament Fangz of Blood 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extrema (band)

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

Non notable. The two sites just take you to a homepage or a myspace page, none of which assert notability. Metal Head (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I can find web references to this band doing national tours in Italy with Slayer and opening for Metallica, which could give them a presumption of notability under WP:MUSIC. However, I can find reliable sources to that effect, and I can't read Italian. I suspect that a U.S.-based band of this level could be shown notable, but as it stands I can't make the case that they are. Xymmax (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I meant to write can't find reliable sources... Xymmax (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree about the validity of foreign sources. If V2 is considered a major label then I concur notability is shown. Xymmax (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What notable bands have signed to V2? Never mind that question, I got the search to work.Metal Head (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White Stripes and Moby for a start: White Stripes V2 page, Moby V2 page. - Richfife (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are many sources online, then they should be mentioned on the page. Also, this article needs major work. Right now, it's hardly anything.Metal Head (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 19:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone (TV series)

The Zone (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

AfD tag added by anon with no reasoning; however, I can work it out - a two-sentence article on a filler TV phone-in show that ran for about 2 weeks on a now-defunct digital channel does not notability make. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI believe that they have to follow the same notability guidelines as everything else, it's just that historically it's been such a big production to put a program on the air that there's no problem with secondary sources. The problem I have here is the "nontrivial mention" part for this one. Xymmax (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its not correct via precise policy, but I have a gut feeling that any such TV development that existed, be it a place-filler, merits a stub. This is especially as ITV is a major company and the "ITV Play" channel experiment can be a significant part of ITV history. ShivaeVolved 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In 50 years of ITV history, the Play sub-brand is a footnote. Leaving that aside, the entire article is replicated in the list of ITV Play programmes in the ITV Play article. It existed for 2 weeks (although the end date is speculation - it ended with ITV Play at the very least, but there are no sources shown to say it didn't end before then because nobody at the time noticed). This was a "one person [redlinked, BTW] in front of a camera calling for viewers to phone in to guess answers" "programme" that lasted, at most, 16 days. It isn't even a programme - just a method of filling space on a dying channel deep down the EPG. On that basis I'm notable, having had more exposure to more people than this programme ever did. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have to disagree - maybe the Play sub-brand's failure is what perhaps makes it significant in ITV history. There's this other way to look at it, which is why I'm playing the devil's advocate here. ShivaeVolved 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, I don't mind this article being deleted - whatever results from this discussion will be a good decision. I'm throwing this bit out here b'coz there is a different way to look at it. ShivaeVolved 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 23:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Grossman

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

No assertion of notability, no references to establish notability or verifiability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorp

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

The information here seems dubious at best. Even if it was verifiable, though, it is little more than a dictionary definition. The "translation" of Hamlet's soliloquy is a nice touch, but original research at best. Note also that the only incoming link is from Gobots due to one of the toys in that line having the same name. Powers T 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this is unverifiable. One would think that someone, somewhere, would have found this word out from a "connoiseur of sherbet" and had *something* up on the web about it... but they don't. If someone finds sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a hoax article. The text of the 1909 supplement to the Century Dictionary is conveniently available on the WWW, and one can see that there is no such word listed on page 1183. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, didn't realize that dictionary was available online. Good find. Since this is now an obvious hoax, would you think a speedy under G3 (pure vandalism, including obvious hoaxes) would be in order? Powers T 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per rationale above. Keeper | 76 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WP:BLP and yet after over 16 months does not have a single WP:V source for the information in the article. Policy trumps notability in this case. Pigman☿ 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Karins

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

No assertion of notability or verifiability, and no references to support either. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, invoking WP:SNOW—Hate to do the snow-fall twice in one day, but it is justified. This was speedy deleted four times before being prodded, which landed it here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Riley

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

The subject of this article doesn't meet WP:Bio. There are no references to her other than self-published ones. Merenta (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Church Without a Name

The Church Without a Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Combo of advertising and OR for a seemingly non-notable book by a non-notable author. Prod and Prod2 removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per Bondegezou, appear to pass WP:MUSIC. BLACKKITE 16:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elegy (Netherlands band)

Elegy (Netherlands band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
State of Mind (Elegy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) related article added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable. Simple searches yield little to no results. Delete Metal Head (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Googling" around yields nothing notable about this band. You might stumble on a very small tid bit of information, but nothing to keep this article.Metal Head (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Cornelius Thompson

A._Cornelius_Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no notability or verifiability. A GS for this person reveals no substantial hits; the only ones are the Wiki entry itself and a BBC Film Network profile that was clearly written by the subject himself ("ambitions...I'm currently working on shorts for the moment until I have established a solid base of decent short films. I have one possible feature film in the works and am aiming to make major feature films in the future. Delete.Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete yet. Evidence from the page containing the list of users who have edited the page comes mostly from Stowe school. As A. Cornelius Thompson has left Stowe school it is apparent that it may be malicous behavior that has posted false self promotion. I have since removed these statements and corrected the false information of which came from computers at Stowe school. I would wish this page to be watched closely before considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzythompson (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Bizzythompson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


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

The result was delete. Note that this article was deleted by another admin; I'm just closing this procedurally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Morales y de Grecia

Amelia Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings for the same reasons. Morhange (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietta Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carlos Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amelia Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete and redirect all to mother. Individually non-notable individual. Charles 01:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Szyslak above. I'd be more inclined to keep if the Greek royal family were still in power, as she'd then have a (small) chance of inheriting the throne - but since they're not, she's definitely not notable. Terraxos (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect this and next three items. Even the article on Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark seems not to show much notability. The notability of her husband Carlos Morales Quintana is also dubious. His article calls him an international yachtsman, but says nothing of his acheivements other than that he is J/80 fleet at Lanzarote. One article covering the while family would be quite enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to her mother. Effectively, delete, but as it will be recreated, it should instead be that redirect. Non-notable, all worthy information finds its home at her momma's article. (And the said momma deserves an own article, because for a few years, she WAS heiress presumptive of the then extant Greek monarchy, in other words, number 1 in line of succession.) Shilkanni (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Tone. Kurykh 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ana María Morales y de Grecia

Ana María Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings, Carlos, Arrietta, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted by User:Tone. Kurykh 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietta Morales y de Grecia

Arrietta Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings, Carlos, Ana María, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Deleting, all are mentioned at the mother's article and this is enough for now. --Tone 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Morales y de Grecia

Carlos Morales y de Grecia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Son of a princess from a deposed monarchy. He doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in his mom's article. Also nominating his sisters, Arrietta, Ana María, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Fainchtein

Leaving aside BLP concerns and the fact that the article reads like a hatchet job, this does not seem to be notable individual. Fredrick day (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Do Not Delete, Seems like this even with be notable in Los Angeles when it is also said and done. It must be noted that in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, ((Fleishman-Hillard))'s significant billing of the City of Los Angeles is along the same lines. If there's some neutrality, then why not attempt to balance it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.18.11 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.106.18.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Speedy Delete/Strong Delete Essentially defamatory article written by someone who clearly is not enamored with this particular landlord. Some cleanup might neutralize it, but that means someone with a positive spin on this guy would have to chime in. Unlikely. Comparison with Fleishman-Hillard is way off base, since a) F-H had more global import b) F-H had wider reach, and most importantly, c) F-H is a company; this guy is a person and [W:BLP] comes into play. Finally, this seems of little import to any but local activists. Or the subject, I guess, but not in a positive way. ΨνPsinu 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. No attribution of notability to independent sources, so fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah, yes. I didn't know there was a term for this. Now I do. And to quote from the WP:COATRACK section, "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable." ΨνPsinu 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do Not Delete, Apparently this is based on the creation of knowledge of CA. Redevelopment law and/or the affordable housing process. Seems like this person is shaking up how tax-incremented financing is done in the Los Angeles area, or so it seems. The Court system in CA. seems like a pretty good source Dhardung. Alan Casden of Los Angeles, a developer who was tied to former-Hahn's corruption allegations is a better example than F & H. Even more to the point,Caruso_Affiliated, a development firm run by polarizing developer Rick Caruso who has also been in the middle of litigation in Glendale, CA. has a similar history...and is on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.75.194 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 76.79.75.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete It seems to me like all of the support for keeping this particular page is from one source - note how both of the entries above that do not suggest Delete use the same, nonstandard format. I would guess it is the creator of the page, who appears to hold a pretty strong grudge. Please close this out to put this one-person campaign to rest before it becomes a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen Girls

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. One album in 1982 and then they broke up. The only sited source is a website site for another band.

Thanks GtstrickyTalk or C 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both for lack of evidence of notability; was the album on a major label? Doesn't sound like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Sex Pistols also put out one album and then broke up. While these guys aren't in that league, I have found mailing lists where music fans were looking for info on this band. If there had been a WP article when they were looking, everybody would have been happier. Mykej (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However they still do not meet the guidelines for a band.GtstrickyTalk or C 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why they aren't called "rules" for a band. Judgment overrules (or should) slavish devotion to the top 40. Mykej (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness isn't a keep criteria and wikipedia is not a directory of bands. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, it's snowing for Christmas. BLACKKITE 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funketeers

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

Non-notable, highly suspectingly OR. →AzaToth 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids/1–100

AfDs for this article:See also these discussions:
List of asteroids/1–100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is certain to be controversial, because I am suggesting the deletion of not just this page but something like 1800 others with similar titles! It seems that whenever I am surfing through Random articles, several of these pages will be presented in a short period of time. None of them is anything more than a partial directory and the whole thing can be seen off-Wikipedia at Harvard's site, beginning with [21], and doubtless in other locations. As it is, these List of asteroid... articles are of little more interest than articles would be that repeated telephone directories. As "Wikipedia is not a directory", I suggest deleting all of these articles and making a prominent external link on the main Asteroids page. Can anyone suggest a reason to keep these pages? Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The admonition that "Wikipedia is not a directory" (found at WP:NOT) is worth reading. I suppose any list could be looked at as a "directory", although the intent is to avoid endless compilations of "everything that exists or has ever existed". The reason that you see the asteroids arranged as #1 to #100 on the list is because these were the first 100 that were discovered and identified by astronomers during the years 1801-1868. The IAU still considers this to be the primary form for arranging the asteroids. Unlike restaurants, TV episodes, movie characters, etc., asteroids were around centuries ago and will be here centuries from now. Let's not touch the encyclopedic stuff. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the number of these rocks is literally astronomical and, if each had its own page, would be ~10% of the Wikipedia - that's why they are showing up so often in random searches. If you extended the same principle to stars and galaxies, we'd be swamped as there are even more of those. The real test per WP:5 is whether there's a readership for this massive fragmented list. Casual readers will just be interested in the notable cases while I suppose professionals would prefer the consolidated list, from which these articles are generated. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, may I add a comment? My original proposal concerned not this 'article' but some 1,800 'articles' (plural). It was clearly a tactical error to start with the first in the list, since quite obviously the earliest found and named asteroids are notable. Perhaps I should have started with List of asteroids/168301–168400 and worked back! Whatever, there is an incredible number of repetitive pages of information that is adequately covered in online directories, most of it not notable in any real sense. Compare this with a ongoing campaign in Wikipedia to delete articles on London bus routes (a few hundred, not 1,800 articles) on the grounds that Wiki is not a directory or depository for database information. Something needs to be done. Emeraude (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment concur that a policy or at least consensus is needed. The comparison suggested by Colonel Warden may be useful as a starting point. But indeed, the first page here is a keeper. I don't know how to resolve the Heap paradox in this case without the help of a clear proposal. JJL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this ideal list, no solid argument has been made for deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since clearly not in violation of WP:NOT (per Mandsford) or even WP:Five pillars. Please, remember WP is not paper, and we should include all topics fit for an encyclopedia. Awolf002 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is appropriate apparatus to lead to articles on individual asteroids. However above perhaps 100 most of the articles (though they do exist) are mere one-line or two-line stubs repeating the information in the list. Is there any hope that many of these will be expanded into worthwhile articles? Several of the articles have a surprsing number of edits for something so brief, but much of this seesm to be adding links to equivalent articles in other WPs. How much is really known of the asteroids individually? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RYM (Rangers Youth Mob)

Non notable youth gang without any substantial evidence/references to say otherwise Jimbo[online] 12:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riesstiu IV

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

Non-notable fictional character. Nothing substantial has been added to the article since it was created 3 years ago. Ridernyc (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Kennedy Elementary School

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

Non-notable primary school with no assertion of notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. BLACKKITE 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source Radio

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

This was originally a PROD, contested at DRV, and restored automatically. Concerns remain regarding a lack of reliable sources, and the notability of the university radio station. Delete. Xoloz (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look at the category "College Radio Stations in the United States". I would argue that all of those stations are notable, and that Source radio is no less notable for not being in the U.S. Verifiability is a doddle, for anyone actually attempting to verify. Granted, the appropriate links should be included in the article. Mykej (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - university sports and activities tend to be far more notable in the States because they attract significant media attention which, with a few obvious exceptions, they don't get in the UK. Be that as it may, for this page to survive it needs reliable sources showing why it is notable. BlueValour (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The station gets some WP:RS notice beyond the university. One notable/semi-notable alum claim is now sourced, checking the others. Most of the coverage is under the station's old call signs and old FM signal. Notable as a licensed radio station with just enough reach into the community and some history. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming unnamed Smoosh album

Forthcoming unnamed Smoosh album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for a highly crystalline album (three "confirmed" songs, no title, speculative label, sources that amount to "they are working on another album".) Declined prod. tomasz. 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XArchive

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

Non notable software product Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is Xarchiver notable and this isn't? XArchive is notable in that you can extend it by writing shell scripts and it shows multiple archives in tabs. it's very unixy.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why this is not a usefull argument in a deletion discussion. Good point though. I took that to AfD aswell. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xarchiver

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

Non notable sofware product Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Let me admit from the start that I know nothing of Linux software, so I come into this discussion cold. When a Google search yielded 50,000+ hits, though, I thought that there must be something to this article. I've now spent about 20 minutes looking for articles that could be used as good notability support for Xarchiver. I didn't find any, although I found many, many comments from Linux users indicating the software is in relatively wide circulation, and is regarded as useful. I'm willing to try to filter out a few of the more substantial of these to add to the article, but I would much rather have someone do it who actually knows something about Linux. Please let me know if no more knowledgeable volunteers show up, and I'll get to work. (And, for those who don't already know it, note that "Xarchiver" is not the same as "Xarchive".) Tim Ross·talk 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another weak keep - Following Tim's reasoning, I tried a Google search and found myself fence sitting as well... I don't know much about Linux, but it seems like this article fits in here, despite the difficulty in finding good sources (although I spent all of two minutes looking, to be honest). I added in a brief mention from a magazine, but I'll be the first to admit that it's a pretty minor reference. While I usually interpret WP:V strictly, I feel that there's no harm in keeping an article here for what appears to be an important part of a fairly popular OS. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if between us all we can find is a trivial mention, then I guess this probably isn't notable. Addhoc (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Runton War Memorial

West Runton War Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable. No different from thousands of similar memorials in every town and village in the UK. Already adequately covered in the West Runton article. The author's proposal to list the men amazes me. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is not always right to delete a new article rather than waiting to see how it develops, the author's comments on the discussion page seem to suggest that this will not develop into anything more than a list of war dead, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, suggestions of COI and OR. As per nom, this war memorial is not in itself notable and is, in any case, covered in West Runton. In fact, the vast bulk of this article is copied from there. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all your comments on the project page and can tell you that I intended to do more about the memorial than just list the names. This particular memorial is on a busy main road and has no pavement in front of it, which makes it somewhat unusual in the first place as well as not being very accessible to anyone interested in it. I hoped to add an image, details of the architect and a general description of the memorial. It also can not be attributed to just West Runton Article as it covers the Dead of East Runton also.Stavros1 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on a busy main road and has no pavement in front of it, which makes it somewhat unusual
Uhh, being at the top of a 1000ft tower or made entirely of radiocobalt or decorated with carvings of winged monkeys in Nazi unform would be somewhat unusual. Being on a main road and not having a pavement is a fairly banal level of unusualness. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally fed up with this pointless discussion. The negative comments by some of you (Especially the poor sarcasm by Gordonofcartoon) have led me to the conclusion that any dialoge with you people seems to be a waste of my and your time. I will now leave you to get on with your determined attempt to remove a postive contribution. Goodbye and thanks very much RHaworth for stirring this up in the first place Stavros1 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirected to Tripod (band) to catch people searching for "Tosswinkle". A duplicate article Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well) (DVD) was deleted. BLACKKITE 15:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well)

Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability. Looks like it might be an advertisement. Dougie WII (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Kurykh 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business press

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

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Hu12 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Business press is a very notable topic and certainly deserves an article to describe its history, current form, and major players. If the current article is only an indiscriminate list, then it simply needs to be edited. Joshdboz (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note re; the spam nomination. This was one of many promotional articles created by an Incisive Media Investments Ltd, WP:SPA spam sock account. see. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Publisher_Spam.2C_Incisive_Media_Investments_Ltd._.282.29. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit critically. The spammer does not seem to chave created the article, but just added his company's section. Whoever developed the article, the overall topic is notable. Having embedded lists do not violate policy. Whether all the red-linked titles should be included is another matter. Since the IncisiveMedia section was indeed created by a spammer, and is way out or proportion to the notability it can be trimmed drastically. and then we'd have an adequate article. They should probably be done by some objective criterion like rank in category, which may take a while to check. But there is an available authoritative source, Ulrich's,so it is possible. The quickest way to improve the article is to comment out the redlinks, and I have just done that. I know some people think that everything contributed by a spammer should be kept out of WP, but that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:COI--they just need a review. DGG (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit de plum

Esprit de plum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this is a real concept. Could be a neologism. 650l2520 (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a neologism; on the other hand could be total bollocks. The author ought to know that the French word is plume, not plum, but in any case, no refernces found to this phrase supposedly invented by two people who are redlinks. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperHeroHype.com

SuperHeroHype.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, lack of secondary sources, and the page seems to be a target for disgruntled members of the forum to air out personal vendettas. Also, when it was proposed for deletion, the page creator said he/she would add information proving notability, but that was months ago and it was never done. *one more night*talk/contribs 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable, independant sources, so I don't see how this subject is notable... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards keep My initial reaction was "delete", but the site isn't exactly small - there's site member reviews going back 4+ years. Lots of articles about this and that, albeit lots of Google ads. I can see deleting for lack of secondary sources, but I think the site has notability simply because there's a lot of information on it and a lot of folks seem to use it. While third-party sources seem to be limited to the gaming/fantasy movie world, there are quite a few other sites that reference superherohype.com.Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this is fairly prominent website, with exclusive news and interviews for Comic Book and Fantasy related movies. The page is often source by sites as newsarama, darkhorizons and comicbookresources. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Website has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly notable site, one of the most famous alongside Ain't It Cool News and IGN. Alientraveller (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative about website and its members from an objective angle, regarding the Boards and the former member Cristo

MrWotUp (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouse house

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

Doesn't seem like a notable genre. Has no sources and is possibly original research or fabricated. Cannot find any reliable second party sources that mention it. --Neon white (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is plenty of evidence thst scouse House is an established genre. Many record labels (including All Around the Word, Xposed Records, D&G, Bouncin Tunes & many more) have released records in this genre. Many music stores (Online & Highstreet stores) also sell scouse records (Juno, HTFR anyone!?). Scouse house is quite young, but that is no excuse to ingonre it's exsistence. Nigel A. Cryer, Burnley. 17:00, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.110.163 (talk)
Unestablished non-notable genres that have no reliable coverage don't belong on wikipedia. There are no major online music stores that recognise this as a category. Buzz words that exist in a small locality and are used/invented by small independant labels aren't notable genres. Anybody can invent a term to refer to what they regard as a seperate genre. If there is reliable evidence then add it to the article. Claims of evidence isn't enough. --Neon white (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced neologism. No evidence that this is an established genre. If reliable sources could be cited, that would be one thing, but this article shows no evidence of such. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's time to start taking a hardline on music genres. No sources, nothing that really distinguishes this from other forms of house music, many notability and original research issues here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were a form of the rock'n'roll it would still be a mistake. Lacks credibility and is not Big Band-y enough, dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-established music genre in the North-west of England with many well-known producers and artists (see Ultrabeat for example and most releases on AATW include some form of scouse mix). The majority of nightclubs in Liverpool also play it as their main form of music. I'll put up some samples if that would help? I'm also looking for sources but they're hard to come by... :) Richsage (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it is established is irrelevant. What matters here at Wikipedia is whether it is documented. This is an encyclopaedia and we aren't in the business of documenting the undocumented. We aren't in the business of inferring a new genre of music that is heretofore undocumented, from examples or otherwise. So to make your argument hold water, please cite some of those sources. I and other editors have looked and we haven't found any sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your reply - a few published sources that mention it in passing can be found at [23] (page 120), at [24] (page 118), International DJ magazine April 2004 (online version [25]) and a Reuters Paul McCartney interview at [26]. I'm not sure whether these would class as appropriate enough secondary sources due to the lack of information within them (save for the mention of the genre), but there seems to be a dearth in books or published material that goes into more depth, given that the genre is relatively new (in comparison with other, more widely-available genres) and has a tendency to be localised to the north-west. I'd be grateful for your opinions on the above? Thanks, Richsage (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, see I looked over the sources, and it looks like you hit the nail on the head with the problem. So, lets say I want to know something about this musical style. Lets say I want to look for a description of the style. All I have from these sources is that it is a form of house music, and it is "bouncy". Not much to build an article on. If there does not exist a discussion of the source in any real detail outside of Wikipedia, then anything put INTO Wikipedia becomes original research and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia compiles already published information; as Uncle G says, it should never be the first place such information is published. If this article stands, it appears that it WOULD be the first place it is published. For what it is worth, I did a search at [www.allmusic.com (go to advanced search, and search under "style") and they have bubkiss on this "Scouse house". Allmusic is pretty much comprehensive, and if they don't recognize it as a style, its probably still fairly fringe at this point. Keep looking; if you can find a source that says "Scouse house is charcterized by yada yada yada..." that actually explains what it is and has some depth to it, you may have something, but I don't see any of that now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont believe you can create genres based on localities, there's little evidence of it's existance and even less to prove it differs in any way from basic House music. Every band from every local scene likes to think they have a seperate style but generally the only difference is the locality in which it is being played in. The only real artist of note mentioned in the article is Ultrabeat, who's sound can be more accurately described as Eurodance as the sound is rooted are largely in the German dance music scene. --Neon white (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's had long enough. Nothing concrete's been to done to demonstrate its veracity. 86.134.198.192 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Od Mishehu, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn valley elementary

Lynn valley elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, nonnotable school. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in the European Union

Conscription in the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is redundant, because the information is covered under military service, and it's nonsensical, because conscription is a purely national competence. Sure, we could have articles on conscription in all sorts of supranational blocs (NATO, ASEAN, OAS, AU, etc.), but really, why should we? Biruitorul (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A case could be made for this on the basis of steps toward an EU military with the RRF but it's really a step removed from that and there's no clear relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already covered by other articles. The article conscription already has a list titled "Countries with and without mandatory military service" within it. We don't need two lists coverint the same topic. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Military Service. The information is contained there, and someone may look up the subject. And while we're at it, Conscription and Military Service should be sorted out better. --Arcanios (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to military service per argument that this national policy has nothing to do with supranational organization. Article is only needed if a common EU defense ever has a common policy. Joshdboz (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the transformations in the European Union member states' policies, is an important subject for further examination. The EU is not "just another supranational bloc" (read the relevant treaties). Many member states abolished conscription on the basis that it is not needed, since the Union promotes tighter integration between them and a more secure environment. In fact, I believe that every key sector of a "typical" national state, should be projected upon the relevant transformations of the EU. I would also like to add that eurosceptic users may have their own personal political views about what "makes sense" and what not, but this is Wikipedia and many people find these information useful if they are listed as separate and not bloated articles, with long lists and/or tables. -- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.208.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect. Redundant, the text provides too little of information for the purpose suggested by 85.75.208.75 above. Individual articles on military service per country would be useful, though. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a list of wikilinks, no text. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW as a Hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hecknicity

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

Speediest delete possible. Not only is it a definition, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it's nonexistent according to Google. Also, the sources given are only sources for roots, not for the actual word. A non-author user Hwthwr (likely a sock-puppet) opined that "Although it is obsolete, this page will come in handy for someone who stumbles across this word and can not find a definiton. It is not a protologism, it has been seen before." If Google results are any indication, no one will need worry about stumbling across this word, and it HASN'T been seen before. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax if ever I saw one. single purpose account (s). the creator, in fact all major contributors are probably the same person. Keeper | 76 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. Biruitorul (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article highlights the closest familial relationship between six of the seven monarchs of Europe today, a link that can hardly be called tenuous. As for the common ancestors, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were known as the grandmother of Europe and father-in-law of Europe respectively. This article demonstrates the reasoning behind these nicknames. The close familial ties between the courts of Europe during the First World War are often referenced, but never usually fully examined, and this article provides a thorough analysis. The family trees help to highlight the familial relationships discussed in other articles such as Royal Intermarriage, Victoria of the United Kingdom and Christian IX of Denmark. This article could perhaps use some more details about the royals included emphasizing the importance of their relationship between each other but completely deleting it seems a bit extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f52/september-2007-newsletter-queen-victoria-king-christian-s-descendants-13484.html a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then for the same reason should the following articles also be deleted:

Do either of these quotations from Wikipedia help bring the two individuals together?

The great dynastical success of the six children, was to a great extent not the accomplishment of Christian IX himself, but due to Louise's dynastic ambitions. Some have compared her dynastic capabilities with the ones of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
- Louise of Hesse-Kassel and Christian IX of Denmark

In early twentieth century Europe, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were prevalent throughout most of Europe's royal courts
- Royal intermarriage

  • Keep - the endogamy of European royalty is well-known. Whatever the objections to the citation of a newsletter, there are four books cited, which is quite good enough. I would oppose split, as I suspect this would merely produce repetition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete This article is entirely in-world and lacks real-world documentation to establish notability and meet the verifiability guidelines. The only proper reference is the game guide and this is insufficiently independent to meet these needs. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil)

S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article consisting of nothing but plot elements from the Resident Evil games. Ridernyc (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In good faith, I believe that this article could be sourced so as to meet WP:FICT. The article does need cleanup, but it appears to do a good job of compiling information that is strewn throughout this extensive game series. -Verdatum (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless you can assure us that you know of notable resources that can be added, or you can go ahead and add them, this should be deleted because of its lack of proof of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Given that this topic spans multiple works, (seven or more video games, reference in the movie adaptation, and a novelization series), and given that the popularity has spawned the production of a Tokyo Marui replica of their sidearm, I believe this is a sufficiently notable fictional entity, deserving of it's own article. I believe any remaining issues constitute a surmountable problem. This article has only been tagged for two months, and there are no specific complaints made in the article's talk page (other than cleanup issues I've just raised as a result of this afd). -Verdatum (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will believe you if you can produce some references, otherwise its just your opinion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since most of this can be attributed to primary sources (in fact, the number of footnote citations in the article is somewhat misleading because many of the sentences have citations built in; for example, "According to the instruction manual for the Nintendo GameCube and Nintendo DS versions of the game (as well as [...]), the Raccoon Police Department's S.T.A.R.S. unit was founded in 1996 [...]"). The only remaining question is therefore its notability, which I believe is not a problem because of the importance of the series (spanning multiple media) and the importance of the organization within the series. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
primary sources are a problem, so is real world context. This article needs real world context backed up by reliable secondary sources per WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. The very first edits in Special:Contributions/Conspiracy Smasher were to nominate Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States (AfD discussion) for deletion, and subsequent edits have revealed that this person is here merely to disrupt and to provoke on a contentious issue. I am closing this and the other AFD discussion, and have revoked the account's editing privileges indefinitely. We can do without this. Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (radio)

Alex Jones (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject has lodged a major personal attack on one of our editors[[deprecated source?] Delete per WP:BADSITES Conspiracy Smasher (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Page speedy deleted Billscottbob (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally challenged racehorse

Mentally challenged racehorse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly named, written like a story, fails WP:V and possibly WP:N. Billscottbob (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firetext

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

Delete Non-notable and reads like an advertisement. A quick googling reveals less than 7000 results, many of which seemed to be talking about a fire effect on text. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳)

5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:5 Section logo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Notability. The original article was prodded once (the template was removed by author of article with no discussion), has no secondary sources, and reads very much like an advertisement (which I have toned down somewhat}. I have heard of the instructors involved, but as a specialist in the field myself that is no guarantee of notability that will satisfy Wikipedia. Also, I suspect a WP:COI from the original author. I give this to the community to decide. Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am neutral on whether the article should be kept overall, but the current title will have to be changed if the article is kept. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Chinese characters should not appear in the article title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the author of 5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳):
    • With each prompting for a change to the article I have responded.
    • I was unaware that the template should not be removed once revisions had been made. It remains unclear to me who should be notified.
    • At this juncture it still remains unclear who to notify. I will email to Bradeos Graphon directly to ask for advise.
    • The content is legitimate as the style of taijiquan involved is a legitimate variation with a real history and is practised by enthusiasts in many countries. This article should be included.
    • As to the charge that the article reads like an advertisement, this has also been changed. If, in someone's judgement, the problem remains, I would appreciate the opportunity to rectify it rather than have the article deleted. If Bradeos Graphon would be kind enough as to assist me with this I'd appreciate it.
    • Regarding WP:COI (conflict of interest), the article, like many is intended to be a starting point for others interested in this topic to enlarge and expand upon.
    • Regarding Chinese (五段太極拳) in the title: I was unaware that this was not allowed and would like rename the article as simply ' 5 Section Taijiquan ' (which was in fact its original title).
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowlySurely (talk • contribs) 2007-12-18 08:19:41
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:N. Newly created style. JJL (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —JJL (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The founder is probably notable, but as always, notability is not transferable. Otherwise, there are no assertions of of notable practitioners (other than the founder), competitive successes, or any influence on anyone or anything else of any kind). Though the article states that "5 Section Taijiquan" is taught in a variety of countries, the websites of the schools linked to support this are anything but definitive about their relationship with Sam Masich's teaching. Combined with its recent creation, my vote is delete for non-notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Minimal English sourcing (& no footnotes) article started life as an advert rm till sourcing can be found.--Nate1481( t/c) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)de[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD G4. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note Rules

Death Note Rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This fictional game is also not notable on its own (outside the Death Note anime). ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete; recreated as redirect to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Sandstein (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island of Time

Island of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:The island of time.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the Prince of Persia games and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Userfy as obvious autobiography, per Geogre's Law. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric robertson

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

Non-notable autobiography with promotional intent; per WP:AUTO. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heat-Ray

Heat-Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just a compilation of the uses of the Heat-Ray in the War of the Worlds stories and adaptations, with no notability or referencing outside of that context. It's just in-universe plot repetition from the plot section of the War of the Worlds articles and is duplicative of that information with original research thrown in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 minute with Google Books turns up page 99 of ISBN 0742540359 which discusses how reader perceptions of the Heat-Ray changed between 1898 and 1950. And that was merely the second search result that I read. Many books, including ISBN 0306415461, discuss the Heat-Ray and its relationship both to modern weapons and modern warfare tactics. And then there's ISBN 0786400935, which discusses how sound effects technicians created the sound effect for the Heat-Ray in films. Please put in the effort of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, as both our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination tell you to do. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Uncle G has demonstrated the existence of sources that make it pass WP:FICT; the rest is cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Heat-Ray has its infamy in and outside of The War of the Worlds. Deleting it won't solve the problem. Reginmund (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, who beat me to the punch on the cursory Google search that should be done by all nominators before AfD'ing an article as having no sources. The same goes for external notability. It takes 2 minutes. All attempts to improve an article should be made before bringing it to AfD. If you're not willing to do it yourself, tag it with improvement tags, link the Google search on the talk page, and move along. It takes the same amount of time as AfD'ing something and it's much more constructive. AFD is backed up enough as it is. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, clearly passes WP:FICT with several sources available to show its out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A hugely influential concept which has shaped any number of later stories and sci fi ideas and even real life military projects. I'd agree with the others that nominators who say an article has no sources or references should spend a few minutes actually looking for them (and adding them if they feel that strongly about it) before wasting everyone else's time at AfD. Nick mallory (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Martian (War of the Worlds) (which is fairly short) until the time comes that someone actually wants to establish (not just assert) individual notability as needed per WP:FICT. It has been 1.5 years without any sources added, so there's nothing to suggest that it is going to happen tomorrow either. The article sounds very much like personal essaylike observation, and I as an outside to H. G. Wells's world just see WP:FANCRUFT (sorry). – sgeureka t•c 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - True, I did not search Google Books on this one, and you have found so many great references! I will do so in future Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Oldest modern wedding ring

Oldest modern wedding ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is just some explanation of some family's wedding ring. Captain panda 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've redirected it to Narnia (world)--JForget 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans in Narnia

Humans in Narnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no assertion of notability, and is just plot repetition of plot points from the various Chronicles of Narnia articles, and as the story is already covered there, this is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This one was my fault. At the time I wrote it, there were a number of articles on characters from Narnia, whose infobox read human, linking to the main article on humanity. This seemed silly to me - in the context of an article about Narnia, it is more relevant to describe how humanity is represented in the books than going straight for the myriad complexities of wikipedia's biggest subject, humanity at large. So I threw this together, and left a mention on the Narnia project page so that editors could link to it or not as they saw fit.

I'm not a very prolific wikipedia editor. I was aiming to add useful contextual information to the subject, without adding any speculation or original research. That is, to answer a question ('how are people represented in the Narnia books') in a simple way that would otherwise require reading all seven novels. If you've got any tips on how this kind of thing can be done better, I'd appreciate them.

I'm not sure how this deleting/merging business works, but having looked around it looks like this would go better in the article Narnia (world) than Chronicles of Narnia itself.

Chris Thornett (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, many of us when we first started at wikipedia didn't understand encyclopedic coverage of fictional topics....by the way, if you know of any references for it it doesn't have to be deleted, but otherwise we should probably redirect to Narnia world. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --JForget 01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TI-BASIC Tutorial

TI-BASIC Tutorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so here we are. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Carados (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi Youth City Assembly

Tbilisi Youth City Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable local group. no sources listed. possible WP:SPAM via creator User:Gegelia which indicates COI issues. Google shows no real hits of notability. [28] . Mbisanz (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- no press, most web hits seem to be by Gegelia as well. --- tqbf 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon,

First of all let me ask you whether you are familiar with the work of Tbilisi Youth City Assembly at all or not? If you are not then saying it is no notable local group is incorrect. It is quit notable in Georgian political circles and is authorised by the Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi City Hall and Tbilisi City Assembly (Sakrebulo).

There are no links for that organisation on the internet becase TYCA does not yet have a website.

Moreover, there are no articles about TYCA, except this one, that were created by me so please do not blame me for writing numerous articles about this organisation. There is indeed nothing to advertise and I do not think it sounds like an advertisment at all. However, I still do think it needs further improvements which I can do by adding more information about particular projects the Assembly implements.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Gegelia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegelia (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gegelia, if what you'd like to do is end this AfD discussion with a "keep" result, what you should do is find two reliable sources that discuss the TYCA in detail. Those could be newspaper articles or print publications, given the low profile your subject has on the web.
However, I respectfully suggest that you don't want to do that; what you instead want to do is let this article be deleted, and then recreate it when it has attained a stature that would make a deletion vote untenable. When that happens, you'll find you don't have to bear the burden of defending the article alone; other editors will step in and do that for you. --- tqbf 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources establishing notability are found. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag as "unsourced" - the concept of a youth assembly is an interesting one. This looks like a youth counterpart of a city council. If it were a youth club, it would certainly be NN, but it is not. Since this is not from an English-speaking country, the citation of non-English language sources ought to be acceptable, as should the citation of the Assembly's own website. I hope Gegelia or his friends can address these issues before the AFD ends. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. James Birchler may possibly be notable; the laboratory almost certainly isn't. BLACKKITE 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birchler Lab

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

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of hosting a website like this. No sources appear on the page suggesting that the lab is famous. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- listed alongside the major colleges at Mizzou, yet nowhere to be found in these lists at missouri.edu; no press for the lab or the PIs. --- tqbf 03:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- Seemes to be fluff, probably composed by a student of the lab.Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we need to be in the business of hosting the kind information that should go in a lab's own website. However, I think the principal investigator is notable enough per WP:PROF to have an article about him. --Itub (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 25 papers on pubmed in the last two years. Seems pretty notable for a smallish lab. Mykej (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an argument for articles for the authors of those papers? Where is the "Birchler Lab" itself referenced? --- tqbf 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add external sources - many - and you've got something here. Otherwise, I go with the delete arguments above. ΨνPsinu 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and I'll try to write an article on James A. Birchler, the professor in charge of it, if his notability can be shown. . That's the way we usually organize these topics. There are a very few cases where a faculty laboratory group as a whole has separate notability--I should check if they are in WP--I know of two in biology--Watson's at Harvard before he left for Cold Spring Harbor, and Morgan's at Columbia. (and of course the major multi-principle investigator laboratories.) There are also some in chemistry. But they would be highly unusual and extraordinary exceptions. DGG (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & cleanup/out - (with 'not inherited' in mind) The papers published would not have been published without the Lab's facillities. The number of papers makes the Lab notable. But what is in the Article has to have all the science mumbo-jumbo & peacock trimmed. That stuff comes in the Articles on the [[author that wrote X paper]] (or somesuch). If PubMed is the "Cited Source" then link the papers there, but (as above) external sources are also required. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the facilities provided to the principal investigator. He's the one responsible. They weren't awarded to the postdocs and grad students, or the group as a collective. DGG (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every research professor has a lab. Look at any university website, you'll see dozens of pages like this one. Wikipedia should not be hosting this content. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this "should" or "shouldn't" stuff; if things aren't notable, like this lab, they shouldn't have articles. Otherwise they should. --- tqbf 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're right. I meant to educate people who are arguing in this debate that lab pages like this are common, and that somebody at that lab created this page on Wikipedia for some reason. This sort of content is unencyclopedic, with few exceptions. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Non-admin closure. Result is KEEP, nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Abelson

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

Reading this article, I could find A) no particular notability beyond winning the one competition (Mid-East Regional Hammered Dulcimer Competition) and B) the sources are paper thin considering there are five of them. Look at the sources and tell me any one of them passes muster as a WP:V or WP:RS. The only other claim is who he played for and I don't think who you play for confers notability. Pigman☿ 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I formally withdraw my nomination of the article. Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree. A musician who has been invited to appear for the President and Vice-President of the United States, who has produced three CDs with such notable musicians as Sam Bush and Vassar Clements, who is a teacher, performer, recording artist and producer, and an award-winner at that, is IMO notable enough to have an article.Rosencomet (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets criteria 9 and 10 for musicians and ensembles in WP:MUSIC at the very least, possibly 5 and 6, maybe others. Appears to also meet criteria 1, possibly 4, for composers and lyricists. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google search[29] on the competition yielded only six hits, almost all related to Mr. Abelson. Correcting the word "Mid-East" to "MidEast" (a Google suggestion) yielded zero hits. I find it difficult to call it a major award. Criteria 10 of WP:MUSIC? I'm afraid I don't see the applicability here? Pigman☿ 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Viriditas, would you mind elaborating a bit on your other WP:MUSIC points? If you are finding info not in the article, please add it to the article and indicate it here. Nothing in the article now says he meets the other criteria you mentioned. Pigman☿ 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abelson meets and exceeds the requirements for WP:MUSIC. He won the Mid-Eastern Regional Hammered and Mountain Dulcimer Championships in 1999, a historically significant festival in Coshocton, Ohio,[30] considered the oldest dulcimer festival in Ohio and the second oldest on the planet. The dulcimer plays an important role in the 19th century culture of Appalachia, appearing in canal towns like Roscoe Village where the festival has been held for three decades; Abelson is the inheritor of a regional American folk tradition that gets little popular press. Abelson has been written about in Scene Magazine the Cleveland Free Times, the Cleveland Jewish News, Cleveland Magazine, OSU's The Lantern, and was the subject of a documentary on PBS; he's also got three CD's to his credit. The Plain Dealer, the largest circulating newspaper in the state of Ohio, includes a biographical entry on him on their Sparx in the City website, where apparently he had to go through an open audition and was selected as a participating artist,[31], meaning that the city of Cleveland recognizes Abelson as a cultural treasure. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of what you've found and presented here was to be found with good WP:V sources in the article. The award is currently sourced to what is essentially a program bio, not exactly a reliable source. I also looked for sources online before bringing this article to AfD but did not find any of those sources you are referencing. Having three CDs is not automatically a sign of notability, particularly since they appeared to be self-produced by his own production company. Since you've already found this info, would you consider adding just two good WP:RS from those you've found to the article? I'd be quite happy to withdraw this nomination if you or someone else would do so. Thanks, Pigman☿ 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a reasonable request. I'll try my best. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you very much. I hope I didn't sound snippy above. I just didn't have the info. I went to college in southern Ohio and am familiar with Appalachian music, from bluegrass to folk to the particular kind of vocal gospel from those parts. I tend to think of it as the "real" country music rather than the more commercial Nashville strain of country. I worked at a radio station that had a sizable portion of its programming devoted to this music. So I was surprised at the detail you brought forward on Mr. Abelson. But, then again, I've been out of touch with this particular strain of music for more years than I want to admit. Again, thank you for doing the research. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Er, I don't really want to seem like I'm qualifying my offer to withdraw my nomination but upon closer inspection, I still have trouble finding good sources for Mr Abelson. This link [32] is a program note, not remotely a WP:RS. And it appears wholly based on the bio he probably wrote and gives out in his "Virtual Press Kit." [33]. The "Sparx in the City" program [34] appears to be primarily a business driven program and I can't find any mention that participation means Cleveland "recognizes Abelson as a cultural treasure" or that the audition process was rigorous in any way. And while the location and age (since 1974?) of the Mid-East Regional Hammered Dulcimer Competition is certainly evocative of the roots of the American dulcimer music, I find nothing to indicate it is more prominent than scores of dulcimer contests around the US. The college paper The Lantern gave half an article to him [35] but this provided very limited information. A news search turned up only one possible news story of substance on Mr Abelson. It was in the Cleveland Jewish News, unfortunately by subscription only. Checking all the other papers you suggested returned no hits.
Viriditas, while evocative and impassioned, I can't actually verify any of the citations and claims you listed above. As I said earlier, if just two valid WP:RS and WP:V sources can be found, I will withdraw the nomination. Otherwise, I'll let it play out here. Sorry. Pigman☿ 20:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your comment and your claims about me above and in the edit summary. Your timestamp shows that you changed your offer at 20:39, 18 December 2007 -- six hours after I added three verifiable citations to the reference section at 14;29.[36]. And if you had checked the article, you would have noticed that the Cleveland Jewish News URL is linked directly to the archival article which is available in full. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abject and humble apologies comment My mistake. I left my comment for a couple of hours and obviously didn't refresh the version. I may also have missed them because I expected to find them as inline citations rather than as references at the end. Totally my fault. Stupidity rules my brain. I formally withdraw my nomination of the article. Because I'm involved, I don't think I should close it but I'll put a notice up with my nomination at the top. Again, apologies. Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosencomet and Viriditas. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can this be closed as "withdrawn by nominator" yet? As a side-comment, I really wouldn't feel competent to judge what counts as notability when it comes to hammer dulcimer players or their awards (as opposed to, say, rock guitarists), and I don't think that lumping both together as "musicians" and requiring the same quantity of references would be commonsensical (the same quality of references, certainly).--Paularblaster (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: and the quality so far has me thinkig (delete, delete, delete). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The reference links do not appear to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NVP. The reference citations should be links to reputable, unbiased, third-party sources. Viriditas, do you think that Starwood is being given "undue weight" in having an advertising link (complete with prices) in the body of the article? Or is Starwood the only venue (or by far the most important venue) in which this artist has play? Mattisse 13:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go right ahead and remove any inappropriate links. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT an advertising link. It is a link to a page that simply lists the speakers and entertainers who have been at different Starwood Festivals to support the statement that Matthew Abelson did, indeed, appear there. It is only a list of past events, so the fact that the prices of those events are in the list can hardly be called "advertising", unless you have a time machine to attend past events. And if I remember correctly, it was placed there to satisfy a "citation needed" tag placed either by Mattisse or one of her many sock-puppets. I just replaced it with a better one. Rosencomet (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sourcing, verifiability, and notability concerns have now been addressed. --MPerel 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Viriditas - having read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NVP, do you think http://www.flyingdulcimer.com/ meets the criteria of a reputable, unbiased, reliable third-party source? Or http://www.fssgb.org/abelson.html? (If you click on Back home at bottom, you get a 404 message. Or http://www.rosencomet.com/starwood/2002/program/a-e.html (considering that is the site of the author of the article)? Mattisse 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is NOT the site of the author of the article, as I have explained MANY times before. It is the site of an organization for which I am one of many volunteer workers. I have never inputted a single word to that site. It is the site of the organization that runs the Starwood Festival, and it contains the programs of said festival, and is being used as a citation merely to show that the subject did, indeed, appear at that event and offer a workshop. This is an entirely acceptable citation for that purpose. Here's another one, 3rd party, that at least shows him to have performed there[37].Rosencomet (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Er, Mattisse, I don't really believe this the right forum to be adding this information. This is an AfD about the article itself and the notability of the subject. It's not a referendum on Rosencomet's actions. He wasn't blocked as a sockpuppet so this doesn't bear on his contributions to this discussion. Some of the links Rosencomet may have added to the article may violate COI and/or be inadequately reliable sources, but this doesn't address the more central issues of this AfD. That's my opinion here. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I was concerned about the WP:COI issues as this article was in the Starwood Arbitration and he still has not clarified of his user page who he is. But if that's O.K. with you, it certainly is with me. Thanks! Mattisse 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my comment. I certainly believe Rosencomet has plenty of COI issues, including with insufficiently reliable and/or spammy links/sources he put in this particular article. However, that isn't the central reason why I put it up for AfD nor a reason to delete the article. I'm currently satisfied there are some good sources to support notability and perhaps much of the information currently in the article. As to the links I believe to be inadequate, that's a content issue best left to individual editors, not an AfD. I'll probably review them in a little while and see what needs to be done. I merely wanted to suggest that your comment might not be entirely appropriate to the topic at hand. No offence intended nor am I saying you did anything wrong, just an opinion. I'm sorry if it came across as a rebuke or attack. Again, not my intent. Sincerely and best, Pigman☿ 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShapeIdeas

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

Advert for a non-notable piece of software. Created by User:Shapeideas who has done no other edits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under AFD aren't immune to speedy. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but contested AfDs should be. --- tqbf 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD being contested only by the article's creator is no more immune to speedy than a speedily tagged article contested by the article's creator (it's not). This article happens to be immune to speedy in any event because the subject doesn't fall under A7 (effectively what TPH suggested), and hasn't been shown to fall under other criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast or fired

Feast or fired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling event. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in London

AfDs for this article:
List of bus routes in London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. An enclyclopedia is not really the place for lists of non-notable bus routes. Based on what i've read of the last afd, which i was not involved in, the result seems to have been incorrectly decided not based on valid points but on numbers. Neon white (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the article are also up for deletion. Regardless, other stuff exists is not a valid defence of an article. Every article has to justify it's own notability. The question here is whether a list of bus routes is encylcopedic content or of any use. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think RHaworth's argument is a valid one and not a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Under that argument, the list justifies its existence on its own, as a navigational aid for other existing articles. If every article about a London bus line gets deleted, then I'd reconsider this reason. But in addition to the navigational argument, I think this is a useful list to have in an encyclopedia. "Useful" in a good way, not in the caricature of the word that is given on WP:USEFUL which uses a phonebook as an example. This information is more than a travel guide; it can be of use for students and researchers interested in urban planning and transportation, and I believe that that falls under our mission. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is effectively an appendix to the main article London buses. It seems a natural and useful adjunct to that article. I agree that individual routes will not normally merit an article but this means that the list article is a economical way of providing a token reference in a well-structured way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but also note that many London bus route numbers have been unchanged for generations; this is thus a useful list when looking up references in literature and so on. Chrislintott (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MLA (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what's encylopedic about lists of bus routes. One person wants to keep the article because "we are going to allow an article about each separate bus route", which begs the question, "Why are we going to allow an article about each separate bus route?" Someone else looks at this as a navigational aid for the bus route articles, and another sees it as an appendix to an article about the buses of London. Still, why would we have an article in an encyclopedia about ANY city's bus route? This seems to be a case of putting something on Wikipedia "just because we can". However, it's no more encyclopedic than your shopping list at the grocery store. It was a dumb idea that was accepted back in the day when Wikipedia would take anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-I just does not know that why people hate buseus so much, they are part and parcel to our lives(Do Not mentioned that several people may be using cars-they may broke down too), so why delete them, they are also quite a useful reference for many too as they prove a definite value of research. However, giving each bus a page was unnecessary but this was not applicable to this page as the list of bus routes. Lastly, i would also like to wish that this Afd would be the last petaining such a issue.--Quek157 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we don't hate buses, we just don't think that Wikipedia should be a travel-guide. I mean, it's called wikiPEDIA, not... uh... wiki...lonelyplanet. Right. Epthorn (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel if not there already. This is perfectly good information, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Obvious case of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some people are under the wrong impression these articles are just about contemporary information - they are not, most of the route articles contain a lot of historical information as well. If you don't think that's noteworthy you should go to a library and look up books on London Buses. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a very small number actually contain information that is historically notable, but that is a different issue, this is anout this articles notability. I cannot envisage this being useful to anyone as anything other than a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I've used it previously as an index for researching said historical infromation MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC), and I live 500 miles from London MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a simple, easy to use, and logical way of linking together a large number of separate entries. Page94 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious travel guide issue. Not at all encyclopedic. Keeper | 76 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess this sort of a travel guide is notable but it seems strange we will debate this, and at the same time a list of asteroids for crying out loud Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the travel guide comparison is spurious and not very well thought out. The article might not be notable, or might even resemble 'buscruft' trivia to some people who are not interested in the information, but Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL does not mention anything about lists of bus routes, it is about not writing about every landmark, hotel and the like. No travel guide would include a list of all london bus routes in this format because it would be pretty useless, which is precisely why it doesn't even appear on the Transport for London website. Presenting it as information that would be in a travel guide is a very poor comparison, presenting it as a List of London bus routes with links to associated route and geographic articles, it serves its factual purpose. Patently nobody is going to use this list rather than Tfl for their London bus travel needs, which is something I think people in here haven't thought too much about. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still essentially a directory of bus routes and wikipedia is not a directory. It might not be in a travel guides, but it would be in a bus timetable which isn't very encyclopedic. No other city has lists such as this that i know of. I fail to see what is notable about this particular cities bus routes. Are we to allow bus/train/plane/tram route articles for every city on earth? It isn't really the purpose of wikipedia to contain such information. On reflection i think this is an indiscriminate collection of information --Neon white (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
London's system is notable because it is run on a relatively stable multi-operator franchise model with enormous public funding, as opposed to elsewhere in the UK, but that's beside the point. There are certainly hundreds of articles on WP detailing transport modes down to the route level, the proposition 'are we to list all xyz for all cities?' has not prevented these articles from being created and maintained, or are we supposed to be saving server space for more Star Trek articles? This list doesn't serve any kind of useful transport information purpose, it is a numbered list of routes pure and simple, notable or not. You will not find this list in this format issued by a London transport operator or Tfl, because some of these routes are separated by a very long distance in travel terms - London is one of the biggest metropolises in the world. Another Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines concerned an article that is much more like a travel guide, and survived with the same arguments presented here. There is clearly a wider issue surrounding this type of article and WP:NOT/N/DIR etc, with the same arguments are going round and round from what I have seen, with very few succesfull deletions. Raising and debating single Afds for every list is going to be pretty pointless unless the general policy is updated. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transport for London has an article, it isn't the one in question. Please stick to points about this particular article and why it is notable or otherwsie. Wikipedia has clear limits to what should be included and i think the policies about what wikipedia is not are quite clear regardless of whether the majority of commenters on afds have actually read it or understand the criteria for inclusion. The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines only survived due to some bad misunderstanding of guidelines and some incredibly spurious points, again incorrectly made about the actual transport system, which, as here, isn't the subject of the article. To justify both article you would have to claim that every single route was notable not merely the system they belong too. Is every street that is part of a road system notable? This a list to non-notable products of a company with price information. It's advertising commercial services. If a route has a notable history it's a different issue but 99% of these do not, therefore all they are are a bus timetable entries. --Neon white (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a price list or a bus timetable, it doesn't look anything like a timetable. Have you ever used a normal travel resource for London bus travel? It looks nothing like this list. I am not stating a case for it's notability, the franchise comment was merely an afterthought about the stability of the Tfl system which lends itself to a list of 'official' route numbers (not decided by companies or operators). Anyway, my comments are addressing the idea that this list is somehow a travel guide, I am saying it would be useless as such. But it has opened my eyes to the many times Afds like this have happened for lists of transport routes, and I don't think you can say that all these Afd failures are merely down to the fact only you are reading the rules right, if there is that much confusion there is clearly an issue with the policies. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles contain prices and times of services. That is a timetable. If you read the previous afd, the result is generally lack of consensus, most of the keep pointing are not correct and are contrary to policy and guidelines on notability. I think it's more an issue with people not researching policies and not really understanding the purpose of an encyclopedia, that is not a random collection of information. If people understood that deletion wouldnt be necessary. I am still not convinced that bus route's are encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I am not commenting on whether it is notable or not, but regarding _this_ article as you insisted on previously, it is not a timetable, or a price list, or a travel guide, or a random collection of information (how can it possibly be random? It comes directly from an official structured system that exists in real life). And again, not once in WP:NOT does it mention bus routes or any other kind of route, not ever, not even in a round about way, so how can everyone but you be misunderstanding the policy? Take a look at this sometime aswell, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic, and try and clarify your objections MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly mentions that wikipedia is not a directory and this is simply a directory of bus routes in london, there is no other way to describe it, it has little to no encyclopedic value whatsoever and no context. it does say collections of information may be considered indiscriminate even if not specifically delineated. WP:NOT does not list an example of everything. Even if it exists and is verifiable it doesn't guarantee that an article is relevant for an encyclopida. What i actually said was that a number of people on the previous afd misunderstood the criteria for notablity and i still maintain that a large number of editors on wikipedia have no idea what an encyclopia is for, which can be seen plain for the amount of articles deleted. --Neon white (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your lack of interest or conception of the use of this list to anyone beyond use as a travel guide (which it is not) is colouring your interpretation of the very vague 'and anything else' approach to WP:NOT. Also, on 'wikipedia is not a directory' - the policy has the specific caveat of "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia". MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rework to include history, like list of bus routes in Manhattan. If there is an official split of the bus routes by areas of London, it might make sense to split the list (in New York, the routes are prefixed; Manhattan routes begin with M for instance, including some that cross into other boroughs). Many bus routes are notable descendants of street railway lines; for others, all the important information can be placed into a list like this. --NE2 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list of links to related articles is an excellent sort of navigation list. IF there are articles for the bus routes - which there are - then this navigation list should be kept. If the bus route articles are someday deleted, then this navigation list will no longer be needed and will be eliminated.-Fagles (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on WP:LIST that suggests this type of list is valid. Alot of the routes aren't notable. An article of notable/historically significant routes would be far more encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make your mind up, here you want lists of bus routes to be mentioned specifically in WP:LIST, whereas above you use the fact they are not mentioned in WP:NOT to support the same case. You can't have it both ways. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the objection? Would you expect them to be different? And yes, as you point out, they are almost the same, as in someone has decided that intermediate points in this list would be unencyclopedic, so as to avoid collecting indiscriminate information, or making a travel guide. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are categories not lists, they are not the same and do not follow the same rules. Arguably this should also be a category. Public transportation in london is covered in a seperate article that clearly is notable, this article, however, is not an article about public transport, it is a directory of bus routes without context. --Neon white (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not comparing the article here with the categories, but with the articles in the categories, for example compare A632 road with London Buses route 632. Why is one notable and the other not? Why is List of bus routes in London less worthy than List of car companies that do not make FWD models? Both public transport and automobile transport are covered in great detail on Wikipedia with thousands of articles each. That has been accepted practice for years.--agr (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and Lists are given equal weight under WP policy and are not mutually exclusive, if you are of the opinion that a category is allowable, then a list is aswell. And this list does have context, it has a clear parent article, and the term London Bus Route is a legal definition under the Tfl legal franchising framework. Again, I think your ignorance of the subject matter is clouding your opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is a useful index for all the London bus articles. The London bus routes are all very notable. They are famous worldwide and have historic value. Tbo 157(talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Somebody has obviously put alot of work into all of this and the pages it links too. Either keep it here or put it onto WikiTravel. It would be a shame to lose it all. 217.155.44.216 ([[User talk:217.155.44.21
  • Keep there are all sorts of things that are encyclopedic to some but not to others. Kingturtle (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 11:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene doll

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

Unable to find any WP:Reliable Sources for this product. Plenty of promotional/shop sites list it and a couple of blogs say "this doll is my favorite", but nothing to establish WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep and move to Clinical vampirism. Sandstein (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renfield's syndrome

AfDs for this article:
Renfield's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sorry to who wrote this but I don't think it qualifies as notable, having been a name proposed by one psychologist in a book he authored on the subject. I could find anywhere where it was supported as a valid syndrome outside this author's work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's 5 hits - 2 local news bites, and 2 writers and a something. The Yarbro link doesn't mention it. Nothing that thrills me as a reputable source really but I'll go on consensus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(See my note below about possible merge to Clinical vampirism) Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though the most authoritative-looking book mentions it as the preferred future label of a condition rather than something alrady in existence.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Read the article and you will see that the term is something someone made up one day, although at this point nobody has located a reference showing that Richard Noll did indeed use this term. His work that related to vampirism was published in the early 1990s, but still no discussion of the term in mainstream medical or psychology sources; in fact the majority of those 2000 Ghits are from the "vampires are cool" crowd and may well be the repetition of an urban legend. And Ssbohio, if you have a problem with me, then it is between the two of us. Please have more respect for the rest of the editors who are focusing on the purpose of this AfD rather than carrying a grudge. Risker (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even urban legends can be notable, and my good-faith belief is that this article needs improvement rather than deletion. My only problem is with your apparent preference to destroy what could be improved instead, not with you personally. I felt that using your own words in my Keep !vote was an eloquent commentary on your approach. I'm glad to discuss any interpersonal issues in the appropriate forum. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:When you do the google seach with quotes, to get only Renfield's syndrome, I get only 766 hits. However, when I do the same search in pubmed, the free online database managed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which keeps track of all medical research, I get no hits at all. That is, there is absolutely zero peer-reviewed, scientific research that uses this term. There may be books by someone trying to introduce this term, and subsequent interviews, but this is not a scientific concept. By comparison, Capgras syndrome, which is an accepted medical diagnosis, although a rare condition, gets 441 hits on PubMed. Ssbohio, not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems that Renfield's syndrome has not passed peer review. This is not a term that people working in the field are using, and therefore does qualify as a neologism, and certainly does not qualify as notable. Edhubbard (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did the same test but with "Renfields syndrome" (Note the absense of the ') and got 2000 on google; there could just be a mispelling. JSYK (If you'd managed to click the link I provided above!) :). Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how you spell it, there are no hits in PubMed. That is, no peer review, no reliable sources. Whether it's 766 or 2000 Ghits, it's still zero peer-reviwed, independent, reliable sources. Edhubbard (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who cares if it is a recognized medical condition or just a term used in fiction, and in newspapers and books? Wikipedia isn't a medical encyclopedia. Your search isn't relevant. So long as it is defined in books and newspapers thats all that matters. And certainly Crime Library is a reliable source. Your argument is the same as saying since we can't prove God exists, we shouldn't have articles on God. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note your recent additional reference sources. We are still at the point where Richard Noll is the only medical expert to be reported using this term anywhere, and the reference sources themselves talk about the syndrome as clinical vampirism. With that in mind, I would support merging this article with Clinical vampirism with Renfield's syndrome redirecting there. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's become pretty clear that you're determined to shrug off this encyclopedia's most basic protocols to advance your own agenda so I won't respond (and I would advise others not to as well) to your baseless arguments. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What protocol? Please be specific. Your using vague generalities, not citing specific rules and regulations. I am using all secondary and tertiary sources, so I am not sure how Universe applies. I also don't know what "undue weight" is in the article, again you are just using generalities, and not pointing to text in the article or a violation of a specific rule in the "undue weight" rules. You need to be specific and quote the article, and then quote the rules so it is apparent to me, and others reading your comments. What point of view am I pushing with undue weight, I just don't follow your logic. If you still can't see the definitions, here are the main references used in the article with the definitions in bold for ease of location. I can't cut an paste the CSI one its a flash window, and cant be cut and pasted, you will have to click on it yourself. Cheers. [1] [2] [3] [4] BTW, I don't have an agenda. I just came here from the deletion notice and added some references. I do find it ironic that your expending more keystrokes here arguing for deletion, than keystrokes to improve the article.


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


References

  1. ^ "Clinical vampirism. A presentation of 3 cases and a re-evaluation of Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer'". S Afr Med J. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Clinical vampirism is named after the mythical vampire, and is a recognizable, although rare, clinical entity characterized by periodic compulsive blood-drinking, affinity with the dead and uncertain identity. It is hypothetically the expression of an inherited archaic myth, the act of taking blood being a ritual that gives temporary relief. From ancient times vampirists have given substance to belief in the existence of supernatural vampires. Four vampirists, including Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer', are described.
  2. ^ "Will those elusive vampires show up at a symposium dedicated to them?". Macleans. Retrieved 2007-12-18. In fact, there is a psychiatric condition called Renfield's Syndrome, named for the mentally deranged character in Bram Stoker's Dracula who craves spiders and bugs, believing them to be a life force. Those suffering from the syndrome have an erotic attraction to ingesting blood, which they see as a means of gaining immortality and other powers.
  3. ^ "CSI:Committed". CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Kenny Valdez is in the Seclusion Room, strapped to a bed in a five-point restraint system, claiming he can "smell it!" Kenny suffers from Renfield's syndrome, a self-mutilator. The CSIs notice that even though Kenny has blood on his clothes, there is no spatter pattern. Click on the link and then click on the definition of RENFIELDS in the article
  4. ^ Ramsland, Katherine. "Renfield's Syndrome". Crime Library. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Psychiatrists are aware that there exists a behavior known as "clinical vampirism," which is a syndrome involving the delusion of actually being a vampire and feeling the need for blood. This arises not from fiction and film but from the erotic attraction to blood and the idea that it conveys certain powers, although the actual manifestation of the fantasy may be influenced by fiction. It develops through fantasies involving sexual excitement.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cohen

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

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus/keep. Cool Hand Luke 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Cohen

Mark J. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change delete to neutral More content and cites were added, still is borderline but likely ok under 'Wikipedia is not a paper enclopedia' catchall. Pharmboy (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing admin should note that RedshiftPA is the nominator. Nominators generally don't also vote in a separate spot on the off chance that their votes are counted twice. Still assuming good faith. Just saying ... :) Noroton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything at all about comics or cartoons, and not enough about art. I defer to Paularblaster about how notable collectors are considered. Cohen's collections, for what it's worth, have had years-long tours of various museums.Noroton (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step It Up and Dance

Step It Up and Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has no references establishing notability and violates WP:CBALL. SimpleParadox 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the page is worthwhile as the programme has an entry on IMDb and various different articles exist online discussing it. I have added two external links, one to a Variety article about the show and the other to a Hollywood Reporter article discussing it, as well as a link to its IMDb profile.

I plan to add information to the page as it becomes available and obviously when the programme starts it will contain more information.

I trust this is sufficient.Le David (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: David Rush's stated reasoning seems sufficient. After his explanation, and the inclusion of the Variety and Hollywood Reporter article I would be happy to withdraw my nomination, although I am not sure that is an option at this point. --SimpleParadox 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... the IMDB link is NOT reliable for establishing anything of fact, as it is user-content generated I believe. That said, the other two sources establish the existence of the show... national syndication would make me think it's going to be notable enough to support an article. Unless canceled I think this should be a keep.Epthorn (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will I remove the "Articles for deletion" tag or do I need to wait till a certain number of 'Keeps' accumulate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One must wait until there is a clear consensus for Keep/Delete/Merge/Whatever before this AfD can be closed. But, no, don't remove the AfD tag. ScarianTalk 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: David just wait for an administrator to come by and close the AfD, which should happen fairly soon. Meanwhile, you can continue to edit the article. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to David Cohen. Absence of sourcing leaves little alternative for now. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Cohen

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

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kord (band)

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

The article covers a band, but makes little assertion of notability and has no sources. It makes a brief mention of "a charted hit on a national music chart", but this is not backed up by references of any sort. I do not believe this article satisfies the notability guideline for bands.

Also nominating:

  • Stefan Corbu, as an article on a member of the band created by the same editor.

Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before purpose an article for deletion, i think it should be fair to search about article and about the contained of the subject. Your reasons about deletion Kord (band) are not notable. And about sources, i think i already specified the source of the image which is very legal and the info about Kord (band) it's more then notable. Try to search on google about Kord and check other websites (like www.myspace.com, www.kord.ro) for satisfied your curiosity. It's pity that there are persons which are trying to flout others work and make some contributions look like unreliable articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drokstef (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 December 2007
  • Delete per nom.-Carados (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of third-party sources establishing notability. Biruitorul (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked this site per Drokstef's suggestion, and found that Kord did indeed chart in Romania. However, I'm having no luck finding any other sources, and the RT100 page won't let you link directly to an individual chart week. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the link provided, Kord hit #96 in issue #49 in 2005 for song Langa mine. In issue #48 (immediately prior to listing at #96), Kord was not on the list. In issue #50, Kord was #79. That is the last issue for 2005. In Issue #1 for 2006, Kord was not on the list. That seems to be it. Reached #96 and then #79 in weekly top 100 for Romanian chart. Then gone. One hit wonder. Not notable. Delete Stefan Corbu as well. Keeper | 76 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - if they get at least one more notable song (as if), consider bringing them back. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong aplication!

Remove articles like Kord (band) it's unfair because someone it's too lazy to verify and search for reliable sources... anyway read this and hope you'll reconsider your WRONG suggestions!!

<You're trying to delete some articles which are very notable (without searching for reliable sources) and this articles are containing some important criteria for musicians like: they had a charted hit on a national music chart (RT100) and if you search about RT100, you'll see that it's a reliable source; and then, this band (Kord) contains at least one member who was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable (Nicoleta Alexandru); and then, they had been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (SRR - Radio România Actualităţi); and then, they had been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, like : RadioTotal which had them in their top too, and few weeks ago they were invited on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) in a tv-show named Teoviziunea (which i saw with my own eyes), where they launch the new video of a single named Viseaza. You don't think that this are reliable source and notable? I know more examples like those, but i won't write every tv-show or national radio that had them invited, and i'm sure that i don't know all the important shows where they were invited. So, please contact all those named sources and find that i'm NOT a crazy editor which is writing some aberrations. Everything that i write you it's TRUE and because of that i think that both article are notable! Thanks for reading this and hope you'll not suggest again both articles for "Article for deletion".> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.80.198 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not remove the article "Kord band"

i've just checked about Kord and my own opinion is that they are notable. i've checked about their "mention charted hit on a national music chart" HERE and it's true that they had a charted hit named LANGA MINE, don't know what does it mean that, but i heard the song on their site www.kord.ro and it's a good song. i've checked too about their appearence on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) and it's truly notable and the other example about the member Stefan Corbu that he was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable Nicoleta Alexandru it's true too. So, i think that it's ok to not remove this article and i delete by myself the AfD message because i read privacy policy and it's permited to do that when you find notable source about the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.220.29 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoltzfus Spreaders

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

Corporation that doesn't seem notable. There are about 900 Google hits for "Stoltzfus Spreaders", which is low, and the article doesn't provide significant evidence of notability Superm401 - Talk 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty b

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

I cannot verify any of this article's content, apart from the statement that the subject won an award. But the "about us" page of the award's web site tells us that the awards are given to acts that "want to gain exposure" as "the next big thing". In other words, it's pure promotion for acts that haven't done anything yet. (The article tells us that this person hasn't done anything yet, too.) There are no independent sources that can verify anything else at all about this person. Indeed, there are no sources at all. The only source connected with the subject is apparently this article. The article tells us that that this person has xyr own record label named "Grind Hustle". From the fact that this article was created by GrindHustle (talk · contribs), I conclude that this is the subject's own autobiography, being written by the subject xyrself directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only claim to notability is a) he holds a job and b) he won some insiginifcant internet award. I see no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources, so there is no evidence of notability yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Until he is actually signed, sealed and delivered, he is not notable. But he could be the next big thing. Or not. Either way, doesn't belong here (yet). Keeper | 76 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nom withdrawn and rename per the several excellent arguments presented in the last half of the discussion, with no prejudice against future AfDs. (non-admin close) —Travistalk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restaurants in the United States

List of Restaurants in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of restaurants in the United States? This is an entirely unmanageable list that will never be up-to-date. A list of restaurants in New York City would be impossible, much less this one. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dining guide. —Travistalk 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you of the olf french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Lobojo (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*List of WHAT?!?!?! I have to presume the author was joking. Or about eight years old. ΨνPsinu 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you too of the old french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Please consider striking your comment out. Lobojo (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mea maxima culpa. Not only are you correct, I'm guilty as hell of the behavior DGG describes below. On actually looking at it past the first few "page downs", that took a heck of a lot of work, regardless of suitability. Opinion changed to right to vote self-revoked for bad behavior. Lesson learned. (BTW - the "eight year old" comment referred not to immaturity, but to one's view of the world that everything in sight is everything there is in the world at that age... not that it makes it any fairer.) ΨνPsinu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um, yeah. Delete. I feel bad for the article's creator. That must've taken a long time. I hope xe edits/creates some good articles in the future (regardless of age.) Keeper | 76
  • Delete. I don't have to say once more why, have I? Is this going to be some kind of record for the largest snowball? Goochelaar (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I really can't see why it should be deleted - it does not break any wiki rules. It is just one of those incomplete lists. "Indiscriminate" - fix that by creating criteria of inclusion. "Unsourced" - source it! "Incomplete" - comlete it! The list dosent need to include every eatery, only the notable ones, IE the ones that have articles! Lobojo (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is why the list should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a directory, which is exactly what this list is. Mh29255 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no, this isn't a directory. That would a list of all resteraunts. This is just a list of of the notable ones. It is like a category just as a list to enable more detail. It should be renamed famous/notable eateries perhaps. Lobojo (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, this is nothing more than a directory similar to the white pages in a telephone book, which is specifically prohibited in Wikipedia is not a directory. The list further violates Wikipedia is not a directory by containing non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Mh29255 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ho ho there are no phon enumbers and almost all the links are blue! It just needs to b erenamed to list of notable resteraunt chains or some such. Certainly the cross cats here are notable - fast food in the US not notable? Muslims who work for the NFL, that is not good, Lobojo (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bye, bye. Not exactly sure what your final non sequitur is referring to and don't want to know. Mh29255 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello, it wasn't a non sequitur, I was giving you an exmaple of what a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" is. "Resteraunt chains in the US" is not such a example. This article needs to be renamed. Can I do that now please? Lobojo (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of Restaurant Chains in the United States. that's what the actual contents is. Its limited to regional ones--not just those in a single metropolitan area. Almost nobody here seems to have actually clicked on even a few links enough to see the actual contents of the article. It's easier to make fun of it. A list of chains is finite and supportable. Many of the red links are apparently fairly notable chains that could have articles. I'm not happy with the classification, especially since some seem to be in multiple groups. The table at the end is a very ambitious way to improve it--I dont know if it is practical for a list this size. Keep and name and explain and fix. DGG (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill the Chef and Delete - do I need explain the problems ??? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strong rename to List of restaurant chains in the United States. I agree with DGG's argument. The title does make this article vulnerble to a lot of mockery, because a list of each and every restaurant would be obviously unmaintainable. However, the list of chains is much shorter, and serves a fine and sensible navigational purpose. The list is written as a list, not a directory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After reading DGG's comment, I took another look at the article. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I probably didn't look closely enough at the article when I first nominated it and now agree that a rename would be a good solution. —Travistalk 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Guilty and contrite as well. I will go make three substantive edits to Hail Mary as a penance. ΨνPsinu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite claims of salvation above, this still turns my screen a decidedly yellow colour. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and still delete. Thanks DGG, for the reminder that civility is important. (and a gentle prod - telling everyone here that they've made bad faith opinions is a bit incivil as well.) Some people are apologizing here, so perhaps it was appropriate. Yes, we shouldn't be making fun of the article or the creator. However, I stand by my opinion as this list already exists in Wikipedia at List of restaurant chains, which has been here since 2004. It is edited about once per week, usually by someone adding a weblink to their local diner and then eventually reverted. It is hopelessly filled with redlinks. It's been tagged with various tags here and there about wikify this or WP:EL that or WP:NOT these. It is also ridiculously long, broken out by COUNTRY (which is more appropriate for Wikipedia I suppose -not just US-centric), and should also be deleted, IMO. If not, then possibly some of the more notable chains listed here can be added to that one. Keeper | 76 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me build on DGG's suggestion. Let's call it List of major restaurant chains in the United States. We don't want a two-restaurant chain in there either. A 10-restaurant chain would be good enough for that list, even if they're all in the same city. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep per DGG et al. For those who can't read any French, basically, please, sir, don't bite the newbies. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen several people use "WP:BITE" as a justification for keeping an article; not just this one but others as well. As if to say "it was created by someone who doesn't know any better, so its OK to keep the article so we don't drive them off." That seems a spurious justification. Why does the article's raison d'etre depend on who created it (for anyone that does know French). There are ways of keeping new users contributing positively to the encyclopedia without allowing blatant disregard for established convention. Deleting unworthy articles is not biting newbies...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a listing service nor a telephone book. Majoreditor (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To those opining to keep this, what exactly is this unmanageable list accomplishing, regardless of what we name it, that isn't already accomplished in Category:Restaurants. If you go there, you'll notice that it has no less than 14 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants by country. If you go there, you get no less than 55 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants in the United States. If you go there, you can see that each individual state has a category already. Why do we need a list called List of major restaurant chains in the United States, or any such naming, when it 1)has already existed since 2004, and 2) is already unmanageable/unmanaged? Keeper | 76 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. As DGG notes, it's obvious that very few of those "arguing" delete have actually glanced at the article, as it consists of restaurant chains rather than "every restaurant in the world" as some seem to believe. Valid per WP:LIST, could easily be sourced, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unwise to try to read the minds of others. I for one voted for delete, even after noting it was about chains. In the U.S., even the number of restaurant chains is unmanagably high for a list of this purpose. Also, there exists Categories that serve this exact same purpose. There is no need to create a list that is substantially identical to a category. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll second that Jayron32, and add that I assume that JayHenry meant those that voted without reading. Xe did say most. A list, in this case (and yes, I've read and understand WP:LIST and WP:CLS. I know the pros and cons of Cats and Lists and Boxes. This is an unmanageable list. If it was manageable, it would have been managed already. Anyone here that has the mind of keep, have you bothered to look at the the list that has existed in really really bad shape since 2004?, (as long as we're accusing the other side of faithless "votes")... Keeper | 76 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I intend no disrespect to anyone, but the quality of the delete arguments does suggest that this article was not given more than a glance. It says in the very first sentence that it’s a list of notable restaurant chains. I don’t really see it is an assumption of bad faith to observe that there are a large number of comments that are not applicable to the actual article being discussed in this AfD, but instead refer to a hypothetical article that reading the title alone might imply exists, but in fact does not. The assertion that it could be handled by categories is also not accurate. Again, I’m not assuming anything when I say that List of Restaurants in the United States#Casual Dining could not be categorized, because it’s a table. And it’s not a perfect table, but if the people so gleefully voting delete and insulting the article creator instead pitched in and tried to improve it a little bit and see what happens it probably could have been a pretty good, and encyclopedic, table. Again, I mean no disrespect to those of you who are interested in engaging in discussion like Keeper and Jayron. But it’s actually a little bit tragic to me that most of the culture of AfD is so disinterested in improving our encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you JayHenry, for clarifying your message. I completely agree with you about "insulting the article creator.", and I stated as such in my very first comment in this thread. I also hope that you didn't feel disrespected per my comments as it was not my intention. It just seems that the keep "votes" have been equally "knee-jerk". Have you looked at the 2004 article?. I guess all I'm asking is for someone to tell me that this current "list", up for debate, is any different than that wholly unmanageable list that has been here for over 3 years. Yes, I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I love every minute of it. I am also here to be sure that the encyclopedia is not filled with articles that are unwieldy, unsalvagable, unmanageable, and have at least a hope of one day being featured, for really, isn't that the goal of every list/article? This list, IMHO, doesn't stand a chance. If it did, the previous attempt, as I've linked to 3 times now, would have accomplished it. It's just too big. It's too dynamic. It's too everything. It really doesn't belong here, IMHO. Keeper | 76 22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Erm?

Erm, wasn't this AfD Withdrawn by nom above? I am happy to help improve the article, but not if it is going to be deleted. I too echo the view of JayHenry. I feel that some of the delete votes above were simply people browsing the AFD list looking for somewhere to opine and make "witty" remarks. I saw this AfD, and voted Keep. It seemed so obvious after looking at the article for 10 seconds that I added my vote. 20 editors had already voted delete, with not a single word of dissent. If I had arrived 10 minutes later no doubt the article would have been snowballed, a large amount of information lost, and a potential new recruit to wikipedia alienated for no reason. Not upsetting newbies is not a reason to keep an article, but it is a reason to think creatively about how their many hours of selfless work can be used in some way. I am saddened to see that User:RGTraynor has yet to strike out he abusive comment above, the one that voets delete by cogently arguing "Oh My Fucking God". Sad. Lobojo (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon Skye

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

This is a vocalist who, as near as I can tell, burned out as a teenager. Only claim to notability is who she shared a management company with, and only assertion of notability is Myspace pages. No reliable sources, never produced anything, and falls outside of WP:N accordingly. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hudson Elementary School

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

This article on a Vancouver elementary school fails to establish notability under WP:SCHOOLS Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest WP:SCL instead? TerriersFan (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Boldly redirected to Volta (album) per Bearcat (talk · contribs) and as nominator. This way, if the song is released as a single and does become notable on its own, the redirect can be reverted, and there will be no need to create a new article. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Flame Of Desire

Dull Flame Of Desire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unconfirmed song from a future Björk album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention that one of the sources cited has retracted. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. east.718 at 02:14, December 18, 2007

Pixxie Wilkinson

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

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. SimpleParadox 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_18&oldid=1116877651"