Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge/Redirect. Notability not established here. Info can be found at the University article. Establishing redirect to whale song as it seems a more likely query. the_undertow ^talk 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whalesong

Insufficiently notable student newspaper which has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Contested PROD, so comes here for community consensus. — Satori Son 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. — Satori Son 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Some random student newspaper does not need to be included. Captain panda 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student newspapers are worthy. There are newspapers with circulation much less than 1,000 that have their own Wikipedia articles. Jarfingle 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, unless they have any particular notability, they should all be deleted or merged as well. ELIMINATORJR 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge NN student newspaper to University of Alaska, then restore redirect to whale song, which is probably what 99% of searchers want to find. At whalesong there can be a hatnote to the U of Alaska article. If sourced and kept, article should be moved to Whalesong (newspaper). --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Alaska Southeast where the newspaper is already metioned. Student newspapers are OK to cover, but splitting off one element (the newspaper) from an article which is already a short stub (University of Alaska Southeast) does little to aid the readability of the information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article and restore redirect to Whalesong per Dhartung, unless any particular claim to notability can be unearthed. ELIMINATORJR 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for coverage. This: http://media.www.thenorthernlight.org/media/storage/paper960/news/2001/02/20/Features/Campus.Media.Chronicles-2540845.shtml is in depth coverage, but not really unrelated, it's by another U of A system newspaper. This http://homepage.mac.com/chrisolds/PORT/feinerman.html is unrelated coverage, but not really in depth, and it's by another university's student paper. I can't decide, but decided to present the links as more evidence. If it's kept, they should probably be added to the article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. That's what we generally do with student newspapers, they have no real notability outside their home college, as a rule. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's expandable, not to mention a good little newspaper. At the very least, I suppose it could be merged into the UAS article, but I'd prefer to see it kept. I'm going to be on staff next semester- I'm sure I'll have lots to write about it. :) L'Aquatique ^talk^to^me 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Alaska or University of Alaska Southeast, and restore redirect to Whale song as explained above, that is a much more likely search result for someone using this term in the search box. School papers are not automatically notable, and no reliable, third-party sources are given to establish it is anything other than a thousand other school papers. Both sources above (http://media.www.thenorthernlight.org, and http://homepage.mac.com/chrisolds/PORT/feinerman.html) are also school publications, which doesn't automatically demonstrate notability. Ariel♥Gold 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to main article and Redirect to whale song per everyone else. No more bongos 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V/WP:NOR; contained only unsourced content. Sandstein 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Time Recovery

Is this Spam or a valid article ? Been trying to see if it's been copied from somewhere! thisisace 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CorenSearchBot never tagged this article for copyvio, and a Google search on the entire first paragraph lists this article as the only suitable result. Furthermore, at least in its current version, it does not point to a single firm offering this kind of service, so that rules out advertizing as well. --Blanchardb 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. No citations to reliable sources. -- Satori Son 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced spammishness. Doczilla 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Captain panda 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mark as unreferenced Cander0000 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NPOV and has no sources. It also is a mess, is a stub and is in need of cleanup. Also violates WP:NOR and WP:V.Thundermaster367 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are not good deletion rationales, as these can be fixed. The question is, can somebody put this article in a position in which it passes WP:V? I think it might be possible, though I may be wrong. No more bongos 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law museum

Claims to be an online museum, but finds 0 GHits, which I find WP:HOAXy, personally. shoy (^words _words) 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of legal ephemeron was a duplicate copy, I have converted it into a redirect. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a Facebook group with a collection of photographs of museum exhibits. It has 67 members as of now, so notability is likely to be a bit thin. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Facebook members can see it here Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The photographs are of actual pieces owned by the museum NOT just "photographs of museum exhibits" and as noted, there are negotiations to have the collection put on static display very shortly at the University of Victoria, Faculty of law. This is significant because there are no other law museums of this kind in the world. I hope you agree. Litig8t0r —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Wait until it actually has a physical existence and has been noted by the media. Might just consider allowing it if it gets a proper website. But as a Facebook group - no. Thank you Iain99 for giving the link. Litig8t0r: a) why shoot yourself in the foot by not providing the Facebook link and b) you have more than one item already so surely it should be "Ephemera"? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Reply from Author"" Thank you all who have added to this discussion. As a novice contributor, I wasn't aware that I could have added the Facebook link and probably should have. As for the proper usage of the word "Ephemeron" v. "Ephemera", the former speaks to a single item being useful or important for a short time, whereas the plural, or latter, would (in application) suggest that I have multiple examples of the same item being useful or important for a short time, thus the use of "ephemeron" instead of "ephemera". Personally, it is a matter of interpretation and I'd submit that either one applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litig8t0r (talk • contribs)
Comment I hadn't realised that the photo were from a single collection - the Facebook site is a bit vague on that point (and in fact, "This space is all about sharing cool stuff you've collected that relate to the practice of law. Feel free to post pictures with helpful comments and tales about things you'd like to have." implies otherwise). Regardless, however, unless the collection/museum/site has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it falls short of Wikipedia's notability and verifiability criteria. If there's no coverage of it beyond the Facebook site, then I'm afraid it's a case of good luck, and come back when it's better known. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. Doczilla 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Author Fair enough. I wish I could provide more information vis authenticity to keep this page active. It is expected that with the display space being dedicated to the museum at the Faculty of Law there will be the usual coverage in local papers and law periodicals to go along with it. For future reference, is this considered enough to merit a WIKI article? Cheers & thanks again to all those who contributed their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litig8t0r (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that coverage in the local and specialist press would be enough to justify an article, so long as it's genuinely independent (i.e. with some journalistic commentary, not just a reprint of a press release) and more than a passing mention (not just a directory-style listing of the exhibition's address and opening times). Good luck! Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a pity for a legal geek like myself, but I have to write delete as not notable and without reliable sourcing. I'd be willing to fix up the article when the museum goes "live" and gets some notice in periodicals/law reviews/bar journals. I'd love to see that infamous bottle from whence the slug slithered. By the way, it's not unique; there are several law enforcement and law-related museums in the United States, e.g., [1]. Bearian 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sherbs

The result was Speedy delete. Tijuana Brass 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources to assert notability. Sounds like it may be made up in school one day. shoy (^words _words) 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. Rettick

I am not convinced that this person fully meets the notability guidelines. The tone of the article is promotional, and the sources are not, for the most part, independent. Googling, the best independent sources I found were this and this, but Rettick is not the primary subject of either, and both mention him without ascribing any particular importance to him. What does the community think? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails notability guidelines. A weak case could be made about notability based on some business exploits, but it certainly doesn't justify telling us that he's happily married to Linda and has four kids. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Doczilla 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to say that this guy is not notable Captain panda 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Wikipedia demands notability established through reliable sources. This article has none. Since listing at AfD no improvement has been forthcoming. Therefore, there is no choice but to delete. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Terenas Menethil

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as this plot summary has no primary sources; perhaps this material comes from a game guide? In any case, there are no secondary sources to demonstrate that this ficitional character is notable outside of the Warcraft cannon. In my opinion, this character could only be of interest to players of the game. --Gavin Collins 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Gavin Collins has been repeatedly told, lack of secondary sources is an excellent reason for article improvement, not deletion. If you feel that the article could use improvement, that sounds like an ideal opportunity... That said, this article is in sad shape, and needs work. I could see an argument for the merging of this article somewhere else, but deletion doesn't make any sense. King Terenas is a major lore character in the world's most profitable video game. Removing this article would almost certainly remove an entry that users are likely to search for. -Harmil 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Harmill. Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no assertion of notability. Pagra shtak 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop musicians from Houston, Texas

Here is a list that is just a linkfarm. I put all members of the list into the Category:Houston rap artists. Also, there is a better list in the Houston hip hop article. The list had accumulated many redlinks (=non-notable) or poorly disambiguated links (=list functioned worse than a category). I then redirected the list to the category. Shortly thereafter, I was reverted. So I'm nominating the list for deletion. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category, and the list on the Houston hip hop article, means this list serves little or no purpose. Mr pand 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be WP:WAX, but how about List of post-rock musicians from Reyjavik, Iceland? List of hard house DJs from Warsaw, Poland? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Categories of people from Houston, Texas and of hip hop musicians adequately cover this - or indeed the houston hip hop category.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially as category has been created.--Sesameball^Talk 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct physics

Contested PROD and PROD2. Non-notable technology, complete speculation based on an ad for employment. Corvus cornix 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable. The first line explicitly reads "The contents of this articles are not verified. This is all speculation." Martijn Hoekstra 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverified, speculative. Doczilla 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Would potentially be notable if it existed (even trivial Microsoft applications have a big effect given MS's clout) but this is pure crystal-ball gazing until Microsoft announce it. — iridescent 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Process and the Law

A massive essay. I will just say pure original research and leave it at that. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very nice essay (?), but not suitable for Wikipedia. Mr pand 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. -- Satori Son 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Perhaps wikibooks or such? --AliceJMarkham 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Doczilla 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the author, the opening paragraph precisely illustrates why this article must be deleted. There are other sites for this - Wikibooks is a good suggestion. Deletion per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and as an unsalvageable article with nothing encyclopedic possibly coming out of a cleanup. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shindig! (magazine)

Non-notable publication, their website is a myspace page. Article makes no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable magazine Captain panda 03:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, would have been speediable per WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Publishing

Non-notable publishing company, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable thing this company publishes are two magazines whose articles are on AfD currently Captain panda 03:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While, as you know, I firmly believe one of the magazines is notable, not so sure about the contract publisher as an entity. No more bongos 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline and alternate timelines for the Warcraft lore

This article appears to be a large list of plot summaries to designated fictional time, failing what Wikipedia is not.

Along with that, it has no sources whatsoever, and with that it failed notability, as a non-Warcraft player would have any interest in this article.

It appears to be gamecruft or at least very inviting of it, and such fictional timelines attract original research quite easily.

This article serves little to no real world purpose outside of the Warcraft games. IAmSasori 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Frag it already has attracted original research; the first line about the "big bang" is blatant OR. No point in having a redundant page, when the plot/story can be elaborated on in less crufty ways elsewhere. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot, WP:OR, WP:WAF and I'm sure others, you can call it a timeline, I call it a plot summary. Ridernyc 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fictional timeline has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, Nomination withdrawn. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius McCollum

Prior speedy deletion overturned at deletion review as both privacy and notability issues remained controversial. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is delete unless notability beyond curiosity value can be established keep per the efforts of Dhartung. ~ trialsanderrors 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article with numerous additional citations beyond the Harper's profile to show continued media attention as well as serious consideration of the legal and medical aspects of his case. He is the introductory example in a book about the autistic spectrum, the magazine profile was an award finalist, and a play about him was presented overseas. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has evolved sufficiently to justify retention. Marc Shepherd 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and thanks to Dhartung for putting in the references showing the wider interest in McCollum. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability expands beyond the WP:BLP1E marker: he is used as an example in some cases when discussing the controversial issue of Asperger's syndrome/autism and crime. It is referenced and sourced properly, and it should not be deleted and seems to meet criteria adequately. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, in spite of the fact that I corrected a BLP violation in the article after all of the above. No article states that he has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, and several articles state that no court has accepted that diagnosis. Wiki should pay extra attention to conferring diagnoses in articles, and only the highest quality sources should be used to substantiate diagnoses. His Asperger's diagnosis is unconfirmed; we cannot state he has AS. See WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as highly non-notable. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellkeeper

Extremely minor character, only appeared once. Konczewski 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at best, it only deserves a mention here, but certainly not its own article. Mr pand 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable and it stinks up the place. Brian Boru is awesome 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livlite

Possible copyvio, and non-notable. Also spam. STORMTRACKER 94 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - sentences like "One of our most important priorities is the effective servicing and ultimate retention of our existing programs" mean that this is not an encyclopaedia article. Mr pand 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep all as no one is opting for deletion.--JForget 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom locations

The first line of the main article states that it is a "A gazetteer of place names in the United Kingdom".

The first line of the Gazetteer article states "A gazetteer is a geographical directory".

Official Wikipedia policy states "Wikipedia is not a directory".

These articles go against policy - are huge - List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn is the third largets article on Wikipedia - and do very little to inform the reader about the places listed any more than a catagory would.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason(s):

List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak

List of United Kingdom locations: Al

List of United Kingdom locations: Am-Ar

List of United Kingdom locations: As-Az

List of United Kingdom locations: Bab-Bad

List of United Kingdom locations: Bae-Bak

List of United Kingdom locations: Bal

List of United Kingdom locations: Bam-Bap

List of United Kingdom locations: Bar

List of United Kingdom locations: Bas-Baz

List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn

List of United Kingdom locations: Boa-Bot

List of United Kingdom locations: Bou-Bra

List of United Kingdom locations: Bre-Bri

List of United Kingdom locations: Bro-Bron

List of United Kingdom locations: Broo-Brt

List of United Kingdom locations: Bru-Bun

List of United Kingdom locations: Bur-Bz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ca-Cap

List of United Kingdom locations: Car-Cd

List of United Kingdom locations: Ce-Chap

List of United Kingdom locations: Char-Che

List of United Kingdom locations: Chi-Ck

List of United Kingdom locations: Cl-Cn

List of United Kingdom locations: Co-Col

List of United Kingdom locations: Com-Cor

List of United Kingdom locations: Cos-Cra

List of United Kingdom locations: Cre-Cro

List of United Kingdom locations: Cru-Cz

List of United Kingdom locations: Da-Dd

List of United Kingdom locations: De-Dn

List of United Kingdom locations: Do-Dr

List of United Kingdom locations: Ds-Dz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ea-Eass

List of United Kingdom locations: East

List of United Kingdom locations: Eat-Ee

List of United Kingdom locations: Ef-El

List of United Kingdom locations: Em-Ez

List of United Kingdom locations: Fa-Fe

List of United Kingdom locations: Ff-Fn

List of United Kingdom locations: Fo-Foz

List of United Kingdom locations: Fr-Fz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ga

List of United Kingdom locations: Ge-Gl

List of United Kingdom locations: Gm-Gq

List of United Kingdom locations: Gr-Gred

List of United Kingdom locations: Gree-Gz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ha-Ham

List of United Kingdom locations: Han-Har

List of United Kingdom locations: Has-Hd

List of United Kingdom locations: He-Hem

List of United Kingdom locations: Hen-Hh

List of United Kingdom locations: Hi-Highr

List of United Kingdom locations: Highs-Hn

List of United Kingdom locations: Ho-Hoo

List of United Kingdom locations: Hop-Ht

List of United Kingdom locations: Hu-Hz

List of United Kingdom locations: I

List of United Kingdom locations: J

List of United Kingdom locations: Ka-Key

List of United Kingdom locations: Kib-Kin

List of United Kingdom locations: Kip-Kz

List of United Kingdom locations: La-Laz

List of United Kingdom locations: Le

List of United Kingdom locations: Lf-Litm

List of United Kingdom locations: Litn-Liz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ll

List of United Kingdom locations: Lm-Loi

List of United Kingdom locations: Lol-Lov

List of United Kingdom locations: Low-Loz

List of United Kingdom locations: Lu-Ly

List of United Kingdom locations: Ma-Maq

List of United Kingdom locations: Mar-Md

List of United Kingdom locations: Me-Mic

List of United Kingdom locations: Mid-Mn

List of United Kingdom locations: Mo-Mor

List of United Kingdom locations: Mos-Mz

List of United Kingdom locations: Na-Nev

List of United Kingdom locations: New-Newl

List of United Kingdom locations: Newm-Nh

List of United Kingdom locations: Ni-North G

List of United Kingdom locations: North H-Nz

List of United Kingdom locations: O-Om

List of United Kingdom locations: On-Oz

List of United Kingdom locations: Pa

List of United Kingdom locations: Pe-Pen

List of United Kingdom locations: Peo-Pn

List of United Kingdom locations: Po-Pzz

List of United Kingdom locations: Pr-Pz

List of United Kingdom locations: Q

List of United Kingdom locations: Ra-Ray

List of United Kingdom locations: Re-Ror

List of United Kingdom locations: Ros-Rz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ri-Rz

List of United Kingdom locations: Sa

List of United Kingdom locations: Sb-Sf

List of United Kingdom locations: Sg-Sh

List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm

List of United Kingdom locations: Sn-Souts

List of United Kingdom locations: South-South O

List of United Kingdom locations: South P-Sp

List of United Kingdom locations: Sq-Stap

List of United Kingdom locations: Star-Sti

List of United Kingdom locations: Sto-St Q

List of United Kingdom locations: Str-Stt

List of United Kingdom locations: Stu-Sz

List of United Kingdom locations: Ta-Tha

List of United Kingdom locations: The-Thh

List of United Kingdom locations: Thi-Thw

List of United Kingdom locations: Ti

List of United Kingdom locations: To-Tq

List of United Kingdom locations: Tr-Tre

List of United Kingdom locations: Tri-Tz

List of United Kingdom locations: U-Uppeq

List of United Kingdom locations: Upper-Uz

List of United Kingdom locations: V

List of United Kingdom locations: Wa-Wal

List of United Kingdom locations: Wam-Way

List of United Kingdom locations: Wd-West End

List of United Kingdom locations: Weste-West L

List of United Kingdom locations: West M-Wey

List of United Kingdom locations: Wh

List of United Kingdom locations: Wi-Win

List of United Kingdom locations: Wir-Wood

List of United Kingdom locations: Woof-Wy

List of United Kingdom locations: Y

List of United Kingdom locations: Z

List of United Kingdom locations: A

List of United Kingdom locations: B

List of United Kingdom locations: C

List of United Kingdom locations: D

List of United Kingdom locations: E

List of United Kingdom locations: F

List of United Kingdom locations: G

List of United Kingdom locations: H

List of United Kingdom locations: K

List of United Kingdom locations: L

List of United Kingdom locations: M

List of United Kingdom locations: N

List of United Kingdom locations: O

List of United Kingdom locations: P

List of United Kingdom locations: S

List of United Kingdom locations: T

List of United Kingdom locations: U

List of United Kingdom locations: W

Guest9999 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found this a very useful directory. The main point is, we are allowed to break rules here on Wikipedia, and this is one that is being applied too rigidly I think.--Filll 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This can in no way be covered by categories as it gives details of the authority each place is under and its location with appropriate links to the map tools. As for size of articles that is no reason for deletion of articles. Keith D 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. Epbr123 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a good justification for keeping an article that you admit goes against policy - Wikipedia is not a directory. Of course directories can be useful - as can game guides, restaurant reviews and many other things - but that doesn't mean they should be part of an encyclopaedia.[[Guest9999 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

USEFUL is one of the criteria for a list, though perhaps not an ordinary article DGG (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They certainly perform a useful purpose for encyclopaedia building, as they show at a glance which locations are still in need of articles, and in the meantime they hold basic information on the ones for which we don't have articles (A category can't do either of these things). As for encyclopaedic merit in their own right, Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs - I think these can be justified as parts of an almanac. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was basically going to write what Iain99 wrote. This is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Mr pand 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The distinction between directory information (not allowed) and that which appears in an almanac (allowed) is a subtle one, and that seems to be what this nominator has tripped up over. SP-KP 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all the above reasons Saga City 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists provide more information than a category could (Local authority, Coordinates, & OS grid reference), and are sourced through the majority of blue links. Besides Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia (a definition of which, "a reference work... dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty" [2] does not specifically exclude such an article), the very Wikipedia:Five pillars you link to state: "Wikipedia works by building consensus" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Insisting on a literal interpretation and application of a particular policy over consensus in order to remove articles is not the way Wikipedia works. Dekkappai 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree - the reason I nominated the articles was because they clearly go against a policy (WP:NOT#DIR) that was formed by the consensus of the community. [[Guest9999 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Woah! Consensus cannot trump policy. If you disagree with the policy, you get it changed, you do not "vote" at an xfD that you disagree with the policy and therefore it should be ignored. An admin who closes a discussion with agreement that the consensus trumps policy should be desysopped. Corvus cornix 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states: "Wikipedia works by building consensus" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Dekkappai 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at AfD is one of the ways in which it interprets policy DGG (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the fact that the proposer has used some kind of definitional joker card to justify these articles' deletion is a red-herring. It is more than adequately rebutted by the reasons others have already given. DDStretch (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The lists are very useful. They provide information of a type that users appreciate and they help to prevent errors. The lists do not define as in a dictionary, but they do inform as do articles. Let's not be too 'precious' - keep the article. Rosser 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And if the nominator is going to start arguing about dictionary definitions he might also look up the spellings of 'largest' and 'category' while he's at it. These lists, by highlighting places without pages, help the creation of articles which is supposed to be what this encyclopedia is all about. Nick mallory 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found this list so useful, that I have found myself wishing we had similar lists for other countries. This list was a monumental task and it makes the efforts of those of us trying to build this encyclopedia vastly easier. I can see that before we had this sort of tool, we were much more like blind people groping around. We should be applauding this sort of effort and trying make similar lists in other places rather than attacking it. To create articles for all these places, particularly when we have multiple locations with similar names, is very challenging sometimes. And this is a tool we can use. And I have used it and I expect to use it more. Let's use some common sense here and keep these lists!--Filll 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus that is evident here makes it plain that WP:NOT#DIR does not accurately reflect consensus regarding articles of this variety and that that portion of WP:NOT should be revised.--Father Goose 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure it actually reads revising - people just need to read the whole section, rather than just assuming from the title that it means all that's necessary to have something deleted is to somehow apply the magic word "directory" to it. The footnote "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization..." makes it fairly clear that it doesn't apply to this sort of list. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very least, then, that line needs to be placed in a more prominent location, not in a footnote.--Father Goose 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the above is correct I don't think that the lists in question fall within the description of "... lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization ...". I believe they are standalone assets in their own right. Until Wikipedia arrived my main use of the internet was for family history research - such complitaions are invaluable when trying to decode placenames and the like - especially if the reader is not familiar with the country. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming editor-driven; we should think of its readers' needs. Saga City 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clear that the consensus is to Keep these articles - but, for the love of all that is holy, PLEASE split them into smaller articles. Their size, in some cases, almost makes them unusable for their intended purpose. I can't imagine there are that many new places coming onto the list, so the format should be static - meaning the lists can be further subdivided without worrying about future expansion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The longest of them is List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn, at 274k. I'm on dialup, and it takes about a minute to load, which is still usable. But that one is a good candidate for a split, probably into three pieces. The next biggest is List of United Kingdom locations: Sg-Sh at 113k -- entirely manageable.--Father Goose 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE states "> 60 KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" there seems to be no practical reason why the pages (if kept) couldn't be divided up to, at least, this level. [[Guest9999 01:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

From WP:SIZE: "Please note: These guidelines apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages". I have yet to hear why they'd be better at 50k instead of 100k. Loading time on dialup is the only factor I can see, and 100k is really not a problem: 20-30 seconds.--Father Goose 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too have found these lists useful, but that fact by itself is not necessarily a reason to keep them. WP:NOT#DIR says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference", which I think includes these lists. They serve a dual function: firstly for WP internal maintenance (and worth keeping for that reason alone), and secondly as a reference useful to Wikipedia's general users. Reading WP:NOT more generally, it is clear that we need to consider the question whether these lists really belong somewhere else, and I think the answer to that is fairly clear, they don't. --NSH001 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The consensus seems clear to me. A little tinkering perhaps to make the lists a little more manageable. Good to see the triumph of common sense - a rare thing in this sometimes fanatically rule bound world. Rosser 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have mistakenly !voted twice [3], [4]. [[Guest9999 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astral buoyancy company,LLC

Non-notable company that may also be considered spam, is written like an ad. STORMTRACKER 94 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 - spam. Tagged as such. This article is a perfect example of articles I love to nom for deletion - pages where there are more templates than actual content. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined; while I've already deleted an earlier version of this as spam, the current version doesn't have anything I can possibly see as spam; it just says what the company is, what they make and what award they've won. — iridescent 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- IMO spam for a non notable corp. Should have been speedied. - Dougie WII 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 spam!!Yourname 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not an ad, but neither is it notable.Alberon 10:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Porno

Reposted nn-band but author has had a little rant so I thought I would grant them an AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete "I assume you marked it as spam because it contains the word 'Porno'". Boy oh boy, we all know what happens when you assume. Anyway, it doesn't matter how many gigs they've got in Brisbane, how large their fanbase is, or how many fansites have reviewed them, they don't meet WP:MUSIC. No sources to back it up either. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I marked it as spam because of its tone. Is a phrase such as "foaming-at-the-mouth rejection of glitzy pomposity" encyclopedic? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Firstly, this article is a mess and isn't an encyclopaedia article anyway. Secondly, they are not notable. They may be considered by the author as being "up-and-coming" but they are not notable yet, and may never be. Mr pand 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Even if made less spammy, the group still fails WP:MUSIC and the words "up-and-coming" in a music article seems to me to be code for "not notable". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Pick one of the reason thay said above for me) That's why! Yourname 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh please, an obvious WP:MUSIC fail. ~ Sebi 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. No objection of the band becomes notable, but the article as-is is not salvageable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shameless promotion Arthur 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after a bit of a tidy up... there is still nothing notable to say. It wasn't hidden by fandom, it just wasn't even there to start with. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N and WP:ORG, any of which would have gotten this band over the line. (I think you can pass WP:N without passing WP:BAND, can't you?)Ga rr ie 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC (same thing) are parts of the main notability guidelines (WP:N), just in greater detail, and are a bit more specific on when something music-related is notable and when it isn't. So BAND & MUSIC = N. Same with the other types of notability guidelines (e.g. WP:ORG, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, et al); in theory, they are all notability guidelines, just a bit more specific on the topic, so notability is easier to determine. ~ Sebi 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM + ~~WP:BAND~~ + WP:SNOW = bye then. tomasz. 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — something being useful is not a valid rationale; arguments for keeping do not address the primary concern of those arguing for deletion. --Haemo 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer games that require pixel shaders

Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, it's virtually unsourced. Corvus cornix 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Very few people would come looking to Wikipedia to find a list of computer games that use pixel shaders. In addition, it has ~~absolutely no~~ one sources (and even then it is a forum), so it could possibly be in violation of WP:OR. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as above. —dust mite 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Basically) unsourced and pointless. Mr pand 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what it is worth from a wikinewbie, I have found this article useful. 65.113.40.1 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources for the categories come from the system requirements of the games themselves listed on Wikipedia on their respective page, this page provides a general overview of what game requires what Shader Model.Coldpower27 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Eye Technology

Not really common enough to be notable. thisisace 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A quick google for "rapid eye technology" turns up books, how-to's and the official website. No notability here. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable Captain panda 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A7 by User:Alison. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenoe

Non-notable rapper. No reliable sources and fails the music artist policy. STORMTRACKER 94 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Haque

The article lacks reliable sources that would verify this person's notability. I tried googling for better sources and found none; if they exist in another character set, I'll need someone else to find them. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add his newly created copy at M A Haque. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dennis the Tiger. Non-notable. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if being a "former district BNP president"[5] provides notability (probably not but hopefully other members of WP:BANGLADESH will be able to confirm) but it's not a speedy. → AA ^(talk) — 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think being district-head of any political pary of Bangladesh is any notable achievement. Also simply being mentioned in the newspaper is not enough evidence of coverage from independent secondary source. Arman ^(Talk) 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that the creator has added some additional sources to the article talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - think this one needs more expert input. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party is one of the two major parties in Bangladesh. Sylhet Division is one of the six Divisions of Bangladesh. So to be President of the Sylhet branch of the BNP could well be notable? Let's be careful not to allow systemic bias to delete someone who wouldn't be deleted if he was a Westerner. --Stormie 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this discussion may well have been influenced by systemic bias. The population of the Sylhet Division is greater than that of Arizona or Greater London, and I'm sure an article on the 12-year leader of one of the main polical parties in those places would be accepted under WP:N. References have now been provided. Phil Bridger 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Phil Bridger; seems notable, is referenced Noroton 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Chander

Notability still not established. Person not even mentioned on company's website. thisisace 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, borderline speedy. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hedge the bet, Stifle. Speedy Delete A7, so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Dennis the Tiger NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Domination (book)

Self-published books with no claim of meeting WP:Fiction. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think an A7 speedy deletion can be sustained, though. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doubtful secondary sources exist to establish notability for something like this. Doctorfluffy 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Fiction is not the guideline that applies -- that's for fictional things not works of fiction. (There's enough confusion going around without adding to it with careless references.) The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK, and since this doesn't come close to meeting it, at least not yet, delete. —Quasirandom 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction! That's what I get for not taking the extra second to double check myself. :) --Fabrictramp 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMBAT

The article cites no sources, and so fails WP:V. The subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians. The article was also created by the band's drummer (see Talk:COMBAT) which is a violation of WP:COI Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason C. McLean

Non-notable actor. Fails the biography policy. STORMTRACKER 94 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failure to provide references. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked the references, they are mostly fringe coverage, written by the subject or brief mentions. No change in my delete opinion. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wait just a cotton-picking minute! The creator has added several references since the AfD was started; among them is an short blurb in the Montreal Mirror about Mr. McLean and a campaign he started to ban advert trucks. He's also been interviewed by CKUT. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor, and a campaigner to ban ad trucks is clearly not notable. And the blurb in the Montreal Mirror was written by the subject. Corvus cornix 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, the first Mirror article was written by the subject as he is a published journalist, the other two Mirror articles were written about him, as with the other articles recently posted. I'm the author of the page in question. leaflord222 —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jason C. McLean should be included, especially when he gains entry into the CANADIAN THEATRE ENCYCLOPEDIA, which would prove that he is a notable actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.143.4 (talk • contribs)
Delete This person is not notable. Captain panda 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - scrapes by, but meets notability criteria with the added references -- Whpq 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the added references provide any notability that was not already attested to in the previous references? Corvus cornix 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- some of the current set of references establish notability, even if only barely:
- Bottenburg, Rupert (2001-03-15). "Bad taste on the bill". Montreal Mirror. Retrieved 2007-11-10.
- Nerstruck, J. Kelly (2004-06-15). "When the Fringe becomes the main event". National Post. Retrieved 2007-11-10.
- Delisle, Rania (2005-07-08). "Wild car ride more fringe than Fringe". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2007-11-10.
- Lejtenyi, Patrick (2007-03-08). "Main Claim". Montreal Mirror. Retrieved 2007-11-10.

I searched Google's News Archive and didn't find anything else useful. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian halloween

Delete Hoax. Prod contested by author. Alksub 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense and WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkie Challenge

Besides any issues of being silly, there's no claim of meeting WP:Notability. 9 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability for this. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears there are no reliable sources to support this article. Worse, still, Google suggests that there is a "Yorkie Challenge" in at least one dog show, and that some people consider the "Yorkie Challenge" to be to consume large amounts of chocolate milk quickly. --Hyperbole 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalerei

Non-notable fictional tribe. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Kalerei' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and unrelated mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft, non-notable as well NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as initial creator of this article I recommend if you are to get rid of it that you merge it with The Echorium Sequence or an associated article as this would be the most prudent course of action. It is relevant to the novel however it probably does not need an article of it's own. Caladon 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into The Echorium Sequence, the parent article this is a fork of. Doesn't have notability on its own. —Quasirandom 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable enough on its own, but can exist in The Echorium Sequence Captain panda 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious bad faith nom, only delete vote is a trolling-only account. There is no way this AfD would have any other result. east.718 at 20:17, 11/6/2007

GameFAQs

Vanity article, lacks content, and should be merged with CNET. AfD's for GameSpot and TV.com to be considered shortly. --Brokendownchevroletsuburban 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, highly trafficked site. Just because it's part of the CNET article doesn't mean it belongs in the CNET article, just as Wikipedia's article doesn't belong in the Wikimedia Foundation's article. Appropriate assertions (referenced, too) of notability are made. It made it all the way to featured article, for goodness sake - is an AFD at this point really appropriate? — ceejayoz ^talk 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — firepoet —Preceding comment was added at 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC); user's fourth contribution[reply]

Comment - If this gets deleted, this REALLY says something about our FA process here at WP. My suggestion is to WP:SNOW close this and work it out at the article. It just came off the frickin' front page fer chriss sakes! spryde | talk 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — not only is it far from a "vanity article" nor does it "lack content", it's a featured article that was just on the main page. There are numerous sources attesting to the notability of the subject. --Haemo 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Hacker

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. Only claim to fame was placing second on Nashville Star. Fails WP:RS as well, also a case of WP:NOTINHERITED (his sister, Angela, was a first-place on the show). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG, or merge to his sister's article if it doesn't get deleted too. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angela Hacker. --Caldorwards4 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Gibson

Non-notable reality TV contestant, only claim to fame was placing 4th on Nashville Star, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. No sources seem to exist outside of some brief mentions of her appearance on Nashville Star. Possible violation of WP:NOT#NEWS as well, given the information on the possible imprisonment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. henrik•talk 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable bio Captain panda 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Phil Bridger 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Gurl

Non notable and unreferenced for six months following tagging Decoratrix 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only non notable and non-encyclopedically written. It has been unsourced for six months following unsourced tag. Furthermore there is an opportunity to merge any useful (???) content into the album. Decoratrix 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. NHRHS2010 talk 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation - Appears to be entirely OR. However, a strong argument could be made that this song is notable. (Incidentally, I have no idea how an article on a song could fail WP:BIO). --Hyperbole 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Ghetto Report Card. Consensus seems to be that songs which haven't been released as singles don't generally have their own pages. The album seems notable, though. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result waas DeleteJForget 02:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bawdsey Ferry, Butley Ferry

Two small "ferrys" with no claim of notabilty, no Reliable sources to boot, prod removed Delete This is a Secret ^account 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are non-notable ferries that appear to operate in a small area. I don't see much potential for making these articles encyclopedic. Icestorm815 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor ferries. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Icestorm. Don't forget to delete the images too. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, well, looking at it and it obviously not belonging here. Wizardman 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable, unsourced and probably unsourcable. henrik•talk 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's going to snow in those pictures. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move it as a section into a regional article - in it's own right it just doesn't seem to be enough for an article -- Tawker 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ducktales, Butley Ferry is at least medium-sized. east.718 at 21:43, 11/6/2007
Delete. Clearly non-notable. No reliable sources cited, no verifiability over the article's content. Anthøny 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. "Wave bat for ferry" probably tells you most of what you need to know. At least one of the ferries is mentioned in another regional article, which is enough. ELIMINATORJR 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest these small ferries are in any way significant. Complete lack of third party sources - and images are strongly suggestive of non-notability. WjBscribe 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is an encyclopedic topic, so it my left shoe. 1 != 2 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable canoe. (For those of you who don't speak sarcasm, that means delete. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. The correct action if the author removes a speedy deletion tag is to re-add it and put {{subst:drmspeedy-n|Page title}} on their talk page. Speedy deletions aren't contestable although an admin may decline them. Stifle (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Medieval (webcomic)

Page has been on here since April. Twice an A7 was attempted, both times the author of the article removed it. Article describes a webcomic hosted on Livejournal, and says there's been publication. I might look at it and see what it's about, but based on what I'm seeing I see a failure of WP:N and WP:WEB - and I can't justify keeping based on how WP:INTERESTING it sounds. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OSborn. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability; no indication that it is covered by any reliable sources. --Hyperbole 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; the "keep" comments are dismissive of applicable policy and guidelines. Content available for transwikiing on request. Sandstein 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. Yes, the Eldar faction is probably notable; however, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should either be deleted or merged back to the Eldar article from whence it came. Haemo 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to fail WP:IINFO. If there is an appropriate W40K wiki or site with a compatible license feel free to transwiki it there, or drop a line on my talk page if it's already deleted and I'll provide the content for you. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki if possible. A list of all the weapons is not needed on Wikipedia, but could exist on another wiki. Captain panda 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 has also been notified. —-- saberwyn 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I think I should point out that this article is very notable to those of us who are learning about Warhammer 40k. There may not be many of us, but we do exist. However, I must admit that the fact that it is a useful article for some people is not necessarily enough to make it satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements. There is a good Warhammer 40k wiki that this article might help: here. It would have to be merged with existing pages there. -- Lilwik 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The only things missing from list (except the kitchen sink and Uncle Tom Cobley's grey mare) are reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the real-world notability of this fictional equipment. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I agree that this list had no real place on wikipedia itsself, but i would deem it a waste to delete an article that contained this amount of work.I would vote to transwiki it to the 40k project that has been noted above. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Excirial. jj137 (Talk) 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, my heart says Keep. The fact that you could easily find detailed information like this was... is one of the things that drew me to Wikipedia in the first place. I know that some of the higher-up are getting to focused on this whole "Respectable Source" idea, and I honestly feel that while it's a worthy goal, they're just going about it wrong(If you want to be a source of anything, IMO, you have to go beyond "stuff somebody else wrote in a book somewhere"). But that's neither here nor there. My point is that the information in this article is notable, and even important, for just about everybody who would go looking for its parent article. Too much so to just banish it into the ether, so to speak. Beyond that, I believe it's useful for displaying the wide variety of weapons devised in the breadth of Science Fiction. I would also suggest Merging it with the similar and parent articles. SAMAS 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an attractive sentiment, but "useful to a select group of people" is not what our notability guidelines are all about. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, and while these may be of some conceivable importance to people who play Warhammer, they have no external notability. In fact, for the most part this article would be totally incomprehensible to a reader who was not already familiar with the subject under discussion. As WikiProject Videogames has argued, quite compellingly, this is not acceptable for an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Indeed, this is why we have specific fan Wikis — where people can catalog all of the in-depth material on a given game, movie, or what have you without worrying whether or not it's accessible to a general reader, or whether it meets our standards for notability. As you can see, the Transwiki sentiment is strong, on this very basis. --Haemo 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might have agreed, but let's face it: "Notability" is not only subjective, but all over the place. We're arguing over deleting or transwiking this article, yet the Montreal Screwjob was a featured article just a week or so ago. It seems around here, something is notable until someone complains that it isn't. SAMAS 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Montreal Screwjob has a large number of reliable sources attesting to its notability. This article has none; we're not discussing some personal, subjective, concept of notability here; we're looking at Wikipedia's guidelines. --Haemo 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's a page for the Necrons, Space Marines, and God-knows-what, there should be one for the Eldar as well. I see no point in deleting this article in the first place. Frostmourne 16 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other stuff exists is not a compelling reason to keep this page, and your reasoning does not address the rationale given against keep; specifically, that this subject fails our notability guidelines. --Haemo 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any given article on Wikipedia is only notable to a select group of people; no matter how much importance they may hold historically, politically, to pop culture, or to anything else, there are vast swaths of people who hold no interest whatsoever in the Battle of Shiloh, Star Trek, the Republican Party, the year 1956, and any other topic you may care to name. Deleting articles because they're only notable to some people is pointless and would ultimately lead to the deletion of the entire encyclopedia. Rogue 9 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the rationale for deletion; the reasoning is that it cites no reliable sources which attest to any real-world notability. The problem is not that the number of people interested in the subject is small, but that we cannot find or source any claims of notability as required by guidelines — because, as I have explained, it's not sourcable in such a manner.
delete It's more like a walkthrough, it's not like a lot of the articles here. It was written entirely to act as a in-game reference or walkthrough. --businessman332211 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is what it looks like, but I suppose bold editing could fix that problem. It could be transformed into an overview of the place on the science fiction spectrum that the Eldar occupy, by describing the common features of their weapons and vehicles rather than listing every single item by name and characteristics. However, doing that by distilling the content of the current article would make this article short enough that it should be merged into the main Eldar article. In order to make this article worth while, new content would have to be added that connects the Eldar weapons and vehicles to similar science fiction races in other games and media. If anyone knows of any sources that discuss such things so we can do that without OR, then please come forward. Otherwise, I doubt that it is possible to save this article by any means other than transwiki. -- Lilwik 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you could probably write a tight, concise article about "Technology of Warhammer 40k" which could be appropriately sourced — but the current set of forked and duplicated pages that basically just quote the flavor text for innumerable codexes and game manuals is not going to do the job. --Haemo 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I think all the various Warhammer 40k equipment lists should probably be brutally merged into a single article that gives an overview of what is possible in that the science fiction setting. A lot has been written on Warhammer 40k in general, so I suppose we could find some nonfiction material discussing Warhammer 40k science in one way or another, at least comparing it to other games or fiction. It should get easier when the topic of the article gets less specific. -- Lilwik 21:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is any useful content, merge to Eldar. Can't pass WP:V, as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No more bongos (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Manor

Delete unsourced article about a subdivision or neighborhood in Kingwood, Texas, no evidence that this tract of tract houses has any notability, which is required for neighborhoods but not for villages, cities, and towns. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is almost nothing. NHRHS2010 talk 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the non-binding but useful Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced single-line substub. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic communism

Apparent neologism. Google turns up a few hits for the term, but (other than a few discussion list postings), they all appear to be talking about the general possibility of communism being democratic, rather than a defined concept. Warofdreams talk 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attempts to reconcile Communism and democracy are better covered in the Eurocommunism page.Nick Connolly 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like some original research coupled with neologism. Decoratrix 19:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and source it properly. It's not an incoherent concept, so I'm sure somebody's written about it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The entire article has a very strong appearance of being an editor's OR. The concept is certainly coherent and may even be notable (although I haven't seen any evidence for this so far), but this article as it stands is beyond redemption. --Hyperbole 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism i.e. protologism. To Mike.lifeguard: it is the responsibility of those seeking material to be included to provide the appropriate references, not the job of those who want it deleted to prove they don't exist. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve it. --Inbloom2 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I look forward to the writer of the article doing pieces on 'dry water' and 'flat mountains' as well. Nick mallory 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling round

not notable, and editors only remove notability tag and unref tag rather than provide refs or evidence of notability - unlikely to be fixed. Arthur 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This is not a garage band or porn-star that may raise notability concern. This is a type of ammunition, and people have right to know about it. We don't establish "notability" for door, clothespin, nail. These things exist and will exist beyound the will of wikipedians. However in this particular case the problem is absence of references, to minimally verify whether this term eally in use. `'Míkka 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any references to whistiling rounds can actualy be found. If I search Google for "door" or even "garage door" or even "remote controled garage door"(yes, even if I misspell it like this), I find results. If I search for "Whistling ammunition" I find nothing, except from people on forums who ask if there are any, and replies of people that don't know of any, except specialy made movie ones. If I search for "whistling round" I find a lot of fiction of wind "whistling round" things. Google may not be the best search angine for ammunition (I don't know anything about ammunition), so if anyone CAN dig up sources, I have no objection. Else, give it the bullet. Martijn Hoekstra 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge there are now quite a few little unsourced stub articles about specialty shotgun rounds that aren't very common. Many if not most of the articles were originally put there by an editor who was attempting to use wikipedia for promotion and included sales links to their web site. What remains of these articles should either be properly sourced, or removed, or perhaps the best solution to make one good all-inclusive article and delete all the stubs. Arthur 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if factual and historical this is a NN type of ammunition. No results found in Google Books other than incidental mentions of "whistling". --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if and only if no references show up. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Artw 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt lovett

Does not appear to be notable enough to merit an individual biography. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears non notable vanity. Decoratrix 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. Creator's edits seem to promote his rewards site. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

THe result was Delete --JForget 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis J. Williamson

Delete as nom Absolutely not notable in any way. Completely unsourced and unsourceable. An absolute mess and appears to be semi-promotional. Clearly fails WP:N and WP:V among others. No more bongos 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally non-notable. From what I can tell, she's never competed at the United States Figure Skating Championships, let alone had an international assignment. Kolindigo 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did some googling and couldn't find anything that would satisfy WP:N. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This case looks like such obvious self-promotion that I marked it for speedy deletion. Dr.frog 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone removed your speedy tag. No more bongos 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Becker

Non-notable murder case, wikipedia is not news, prod removed as "vandalism". Delete This is a Secret ^account 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not notable and should be deleted. It focuses only on her death and not her notability as a living person. Icestorm815 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a murder can be notable, this was just a big investigation without evidence of wider notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable / not news. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Murders are not notable unless they involve notable figures or generate extraordinary press coverage. The press coverage cited here appears (although I cannot read German) to be about what one would expect from any given murder. The creator of the article, MaxHirschberger, introduced it on his second day on the English Wikipedia, and may not have been familiar with policy. He has not made an edit in over a year. --Hyperbole 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ID Sniper rifle

fictional product, not notable. Sources provided either fail WP:RS or aren't in english. Arthur 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Yes notable, the rifle made quite a buzz, duping Chineze arms dealers and Computerworld. Sources conform WP:RS, some are english, and non-english is not forbidden. Thanks wikiGods, en:wikipedia is a truly international project. `'Míkka 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most of the sources given are blog-type sources, some don't even link to any information. A good reliable source that is verifiable should be included. Arthur 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. There are newspaper links that establish notability. The author links establish correct, "non-hearsay" description. All verifiable. `'Míkka 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above Jack THE Pumpkin KING 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - sources seem sufficient, though an English language version of that Der Speigle peice would be good. Could possibly do with some clean up. Artw 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the controversy surrounding the gun as a hoax makes it notable. Captain panda 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sourcing for notability. N2e 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found the article via WP:GUNS and tried to clean up the references a little and link to a couple of editorials at Computerworld. Letting you know, in case it changes anything. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me. Liveforever22 08:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oos

Looks like vanispamcruftisement. No third party sources. No claim of notability. The article is just a list of features and to-do's. Previosly prodded. De-prodded without substantive change or comment. -- Ben 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep If that's WP:VSCA I'd like to see more cruft articles that well written. -Hansonc 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know... you are probably right. It probably doesn't qualify as WP:VSCA. It reads like ad to me. Since you didn't comment on the lack of sources and lack of notability, does that mean that you agree that they aren't there and that the article's subject doesn't meet WP:N? -- Ben 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't feel WP:N is a good enough reason to delete 99% of the time. Why not fix the article rather than destroy it if you're not happy with WP:NPV which is what you should be arguing if you're calling it an advertisement. - Hansonc 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problem is that it doesn't have much exposure, so going on WP:N and WP:WEB, I'd have to say no. Not every software project is notable, sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, advertisement, probably coi as creators only edits have been to this page and a relating image: Special:Contributions/Habam2004. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OSborn. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the kind of company that has the notablity to be on Wikipedia. Also looks like an ad. Captain panda 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any third party reliable sources discussing it, so it does not (yet, at least) appear notable enough. Hal peridol 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xian H-8

Purely speculative article with no reliable sources. When I searched for something to confirm the claims made in this article I found nothing but rumors on blogs and forums. Tim Vickers 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While obviously a well-intentioned and informative article, I’m afraid the final paragraph says it all (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). “Due to very little official information released, these domestic Chinese claims have yet to be confirmed by sources outside China. There are also speculations that the aircraft flying on Jan 15, 2007 was a much less advanced H-6K.” It’s pretty certain that the aircraft referred to really was an H-6K. While there has been much speculation inside of China and out about future Chinese bomber programs – and ‘H-8’ and ‘H-9’ have been mentioned in the domestic press – there’s not been any solid evidence that they are so far along as to be flown. Indeed, given the reportedly ‘disappointing’ performance of the H-6K, it seems unlikely that their more advanced technologies have yet been developed. I think what is being seen and written about are models of proposed design concepts (and apparently evolved from the H-6), not necessarily planned aircraft. If so, then it is unlikely that the military has assigned any such aircraft concept a formal “H-X” designation at this time. My position on these types of articles in the past has been to recommend merging articles about future Chinese military aircraft into a single article clearly focused on what is being “reported” by published sources, but not presenting them as “official” or even necessarily likely end products. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find sources in JDW or AWST... can someone? 132.205.99.122 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen references to the H-8 & H-9 on defense-related forums/blogs, mostly Chinese. A start would be to at least cite those sites relied upon to produce the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums and bogs are not reliable sources, we can't use them for references. Tim Vickers 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but some of the originating editor's sources might be reliable ones; or, if not, one can sometimes backtrack from a forum/blog entry to the original source. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The airplane design seems to have been developed enough to not have WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Captain panda 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the point – the subject is very "crystal" and the article makes it seem like it's not. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL really doesn't matter if there are no reliable sources. - BillCJ 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. If no reliable sources can be found pretty quickly, I may reconsider my Keep. Captain panda 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination and first comment. Would support an article on Future Chinese aircraft projects, provided of course it has reliable sources. - BillCJ 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no sources and crystal ballCromdog 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encyclopedia subject, to be sure, but zero sources and totally unverifiable. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found. A Train^talk 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of the Hall

Non-notable group of fictional characters. Listing at AfD after contested, expired {{prod}}. Mikeblas 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An effort is being made to use this article as a spinoff article from The Icewind Dale Trilogy to describe the main characters instead of having individual articles for them, as was previously the case. As this is (clearly, I think) a notable series of books, having this article as a summary of information about the characters seems like an appropriate level of detail in line with WP:SUMMARY. The contested prod was actually placed after the proposal to merge the character information here was made at the AfD for one of the characters, without any mention of the prod being made in the AfD discussion, which was a bit disconcerting to discover when the AfD ended, but I'm assuming this was an oversight by Mikeblas and not an intentional attempt to force an outcome on the AfD. Pinball22 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Icewind Dale Trilogy is one of the iconic Forgotten Realms stories. This is a summary article of the main characters and this is the place where main characters that have been deemed "not main enough" should be treated. --Polaron | Talk 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune The sections for Drizzt, Bruenor and Cattie-Brie should be more than a just a link. Additionally, the sections for Wulfgar and Regis should be much shorter. Wulfgar should have his own article. Apparently he had one and it got deleted for lack of secondary references, which should have been easy enough to fix. This article also needs some references. EvilCouch 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information on Regis and Wulfgar is taken verbatim from their just-deleted articles, for GFDL compliance reasons. You're free to prune them as normal at this point. The other three still have their articles; while of course their sections should be expanded to cover basic information, my main objective was finding a home for Regis and Wulfgar. Everything else will come with time. Powers ^T 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is entirely plot summary and I doubt any of the characters have been covered in reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT. If you trimmed out the content that fails policy, you'd be left with virtually nothing to merge. Doctorfluffy 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just got done merging Wulfgar and Regis in here. I still think secondary sources exist for at least some of these characters, but I haven't had time to look in the last several days when this all started. The difficulty with subjects such as this is a large number of hits that don't qualify as reliable third-party sources; it can take a very long time to find reliable sources on pop-culture topics given the ridiculous number of unreliable ones that exist on the Internet. Powers ^T 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Powers ^T 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Powers ^T 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep providing there is some vigorous pruning and sourcing. A suitable place to put sections on all the characters of the setting, rather than have multiple unnecessary articles. Drizzt Do'Urden, Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars(!), Bruenor Battlehammer and Cattie-Brie need to be merged into this. Neil ☎ 09:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only five Companions of the Hall. "All the characters of the setting" would make this possibly the longest article in Wikipedia. Powers ^T 13:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am betraying my ignorance - I mean all the Companions of the Hall. I have a doubt, though, that a single article with all the characters would be that long if it were restricted to verifiable reliable secondary sourced information only. Neil ☎
Delete as this article is comprised of plot summmary, which cannot be verified as the primary source(s) are not cited with footnotes, and it is written from a heavy in universe perspective which is devoid of real-world context or critical analysis relating to the development of this fictional group. Also, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that this fictional character has any real-world notability. The subject matter is dealt with extensively on fansites as ghits show, so there is no good reason to keep this article; there is no evidence that this plot summary has any encyclopedic value at all.--Gavin Collins 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other sites deal with this subject matter" is not a reason to delete. Powers ^T 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This characters have their own individual articles; the books they are derived from has their own articles; the author of this books have their own article. However, none of the components of this related group has any reliable secondary source to demonstrate notability. This article links are a classic exmple of a Link farm. --Gavin Collins 09:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep: LtPowers is in the process of restructuring this and associated articles as the result of a recent AfD that merged content into here, and deserves a good-faith chance to finish the work before judging it. If after a decent time (say, a month or two) and notability has not been demonstrated, then the question of (per WP:FICT) merging this into the relevant book or series article should be considered. —Quasirandom 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could work on the article, but I can't make guarantees. The merge I was doing is done now; I don't want anyone to think I have big plans for this article, because I don't. I don't know when I'll find the time to do significant research into this. I'm barely keeping up with the AfDs. Powers ^T 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few hundreds of thousands of people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk • contribs)
Keep per the above reasons. Liveforever22 08:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator's contention that these characters, major players in a huge and increasing series of books, are non-notable is passing absurd. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pinball, Zahakiel. Edward321 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Move to Icewind Dale Trilogy characters, more encyclopedical tittle. And restore Wulfgar's article, the real world context exist there. Garret Beaumain 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except they've been the main characters in more books than just the Icewind Dale trilogy, and there are more characters than just the five in that trilogy. Powers ^T 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22. Rray 10:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22. My own feeling is that this article should be a redirect to the main article for the series unless the series article is too long, but I'm not motivated to make that argument by this rather sloppy AfD. -Harmil 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Lily Allen album)

Future album which doesn't even have a name yet. I'd say something about WP:CRYSTAL, but to be honest I think my tea leaves actually contain more information on this future album than the article does. Chris Cunningham 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as totally nonnotable cruft and so on. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. no information in this. there's barely even any tea leaves. tomasz. 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the source, she says "Hopefully after that I can get to writing the next album", which is too crystal-bally. Wait until more definitive information comes out like a release date. Spellcast 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete lack of any real information. -- Whpq 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So WP:CRYSTALISH that it doesn't even have a name yet. •97198 talk 10:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Power

Non-notable tractor dealership, no sources cited. Fails WP:CORP & WP:NOT#DIR. Contested speedy deletion. Caknuck 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems very likely notable enough presuming that the numbers in the article (18 locations, $154 million revenue) can be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. The company seems notable enough. Captain panda 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage in secondary sources, e.g. article in Underground Construction May 2006 - [6]. Hal peridol 03:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) under WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin close. cab 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacktro

Made-up genre name (it had been known as electro funk for the past 30 years!), promotion for parties. Article has been recreated after it was previously deleted - Jvhertum 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete per G4, recreation of deleted material. Martijn Hoekstra 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Delete Per G4. This article was already identified as a non-significant neologism without any proper references. I'll place a speedy deletion temp on it. Icestorm815 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Nu Chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity

No sources to indicate notability Martijn Hoekstra 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Explodicle 16:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per precedent, local chapters of student organizations are not inherently notable. Nothing in the article asserts otherwise. Caknuck 17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ATΩ Merge to Alpha Tau Omega Mandsford 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable. Decoratrix 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging any worthwhile content to Alpha Tau Omega – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability is established through media sources. Satisfied highest level of amateur sports. the_undertow ^talk 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Taylor

Contested prod, no reason given for prod removal. This person has done nothing notable enough to justify a page on Wikipedia. He is simply a college basketball player, of which there are thousands each year. He has done nothing notable enough to distinguish him from the many thousands of other college basketball players throughout history. The extent of his allocates is earning All-Pac 10 freshman honors and All-Pac 10 honorable mention honors, which in not nearly notable enough to distinguish him from all the others. There are hundreds of-all conference selections made each year, most of which never make it to the NBA. If he had earned All-American honors I would consider that notable enough for inclusion, but an All-Pac 10 honorable mention being enough would open the door for thousands of other non-notable college basketball player articles being made. If he makes it to the pros or does something equally notable then this could be recreated, but for now keeping this would set precedent to create thousands of new articles on college basketball players that never make it past the amateur level. VegaDark (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Possible vanity article. Decoratrix 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Decoratrix. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently has plenty of media coverage [7]. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... we don't need to delete articles for fear of running out of space. --W.marsh 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The relevant bit from WP:BIO is:

Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).

Seems to me that the Ducks basketball program is clearly "highest level," as they only last year went deep in March Madness. -Pete 20:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to pass WP:BIO per Peteforsyth. No more bongos 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as a useful search term. W.marsh 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamery

This article about a comic book does not assert notability. It is unclear why it meets WP:BK. PROD was contested in February. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not stated, thus it should be deleted per WP:Notability. Icestorm815 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of this someplace. Delete as not notable - small press, small run, and not really covered enough to generate reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eclipse Comics. We don't need afd for this sort of stuff. The first rule for people when nominating for deletion should be, can I redirect this somewhere. Hiding Talk 11:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since the PROD was removed in February, I assume it's a somewhat controversial issue, so it might warrant a discussion. --B. Wolterding 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the prod was removed in Feb the article has haedly been touched and I don't see how a redirect avoids a discussion. Have a look at be bold and the being bold, revert and discuss pages, they outline an approach where you make an editorial decision and then take it from there, rather than look straight to discussion. Like I say, for me these days my deletion checklist tends to be, can I clean this article up, if so tag for cleanup or do it myself, can I redirect or merge it somewhere, if so I do it, and then do I think about deletion. If anything warrants a discussion, you'll find out soon enough on Wikipedia, and it's a shame this tidy little stub is going to get deleted when there's no need for it to be and there are far worse articles out there. Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I had a quick nose around and found some links. I can't see any reason this couldn't be expanded into a larger article. (Emperor 16:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Does not have the sources necessary to satisfy WP:BK or the more general WP:N. Jay32183 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. There seems to be consensus that this is a horribly written POV fork that, however, may contain information that can be incorporated into the RyanAir article. --Tony Sidaway 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: non-admin closure. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Ryanair

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not even a coatrack, as no attempt is made to obfuscate the bias behind a nominally legitimate topic. The article is little more than an excuse to collect negative press and opinions about Ryanair and is inherently contrary to WP:NPOV. Covering criticism and responses is sometimes acceptable in a separate article (though controversial), but a random shotgun blast of everything negative that can be dug up is not. Vassyana 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably could be salvaged using all the sources and such. As it is currently written, "train wreck" ("plane crash?") would not even begin to describe it. If it does get deleted, I might ask to have it thrown in my user space for salvaging when I have time. Thanks! spryde | talk 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and then delete) into main article - preferable to have a npov article, than a situation where the main article doesn't contain any criticism and this article is overly critical. Addhoc 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only the information that is actually important needs to be merged, but I think merging will provide the article with some more information. Captain panda 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with editting to trim it down -- Whpq 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content and Delete - Blatant POV fork. No more bongos 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Kurykh 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of short men

Indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of tall or short is very subjective and highly POV. What is short for an American or a Norwegian might not be the same for a Pygmy or an Asian. Neither is Wikipedia an authority, nor can consensus be used to define and set a particular point of view as to what is short and what is tall. As is quite obvious from the history of all the articles, they are prone to long-term edit-warring, aggravated and heated debates. It's time we get rid of these dregs of balderdash from our encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all subjective lists. Besides which, despite a year passing since this narrowly escaped deletion there is no improvement in the sourcing, and frankly I don't see that changing. There's no way a definition can be agreed which isn't ultimately subjecting and reflecting someone's cultural perspective. Indeed biologically height has varied over time and between races.--Doc^g 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be BLP issues here. Whilst we may record someone's height, for us to decree them 'short' may be problematic. I hear Tom Cruise has lawyer on standby ^{[citation needed]}.--Doc^g 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - subjective, unsourced, doesn't even use the same units throughout. Who is Wikipedia to call someone short? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: unfair list, combining dwarfism with people who happen to be short. Danny 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale last time. The definition of tall varies by country, nationality, time and other criteria. Effoirts have eben made to make these lists other than POV, but in my view they will always fail because a tall Japanese is a short Dutchman. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: subjective criteria of inclusion, more a trivia list than an encyclopedia list. Tizio 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: WP:NOT#DIR says:

"... Wikipedia articles are not: ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..."

By that policy we should only have lists of people who are famous for being tall/short.

WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy also applies.

Phil Bridger 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per obvious. Never going to be NPOV. --Folantin 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no possible objective standard of what constitutes being "tall" or "short" so by definition this is unsalvageable original research. Otto4711 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I think the only problem is the TITLE of the list, and the feeling that it's offensive to note that someone's height is 5 feet 3 inches or less. However, I think that the idea that a man should be "ashamed" of his adult height (so let's not mention it) is even more offensive. Should we delete a list of African-American men because someone might not want to be "reminded" of his skin color? The comments that there is "no objective standard" have to be reconciled with the fact that the list arranges people by their height. Perhaps this should be called "List of adult males who are 5'3" tall or less", but I don't think that would make any of you less uncomfortable. Mandsford 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whatever height you set as the maximum or minimum for inclusion, it's still arbitrary. Otto4711 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man argument. Nobody has said that it's offensive to note someone's height or that anyone should be ashamed of their height. Phil Bridger 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Gee The time tested "straw man" argument. This one has P.C. written all over it. Mandsford 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What exactly is the definition for "tall" or "short"? I have a friend that I consider short, but then there's people who he considers short. There's no real reason for this list. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all lists of tall and short humans!-These articles are rather irrelevant and difficult to verify because there always discussion about starting the tall men list with 6'4" or 6'6" or 6'7" and so on. D@rk K 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. On what viewpoint does the list based from? 5'3" might be short on some areas of the world while they are average on some areas. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 foot 3 is below average male height in all nations I could find. Once upon a time I had it start at 153 cm or 5 ft ¼ inch, which I believe put all names in the "short stature" percentile in most nations. However some joker didn't like that and it's apparently a vandal attractor. Sad really.--T. Anthony 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if most countries view that as short. Human height suggests that 5'3" is average in our country though--125.212.21.31 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Cookie expired on me! --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I took off all males above 4'11". I'm still not sure it should be kept, but presumably there is few to no nations with an average male height that's near that short.--T. Anthony 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all! - these are totally useless. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this idea may be salvageable in some form but this isn't it. JJL 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objections above are insubstantial. These lists are easily maintained and are currently quite good, as the blue links show. If you want a test then it should obviously be the existence of secondary sources in which the shortness/tallness of the person is cited as notable feature. Colonel Warden 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I worked hard to keep these, but I don't think they've gotten any better. Also List of people with dwarfism and List of people with gigantism probably cover the most relevant entries well enough.--T. Anthony 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because it's interesting, and that's a good thing! • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep an article. Phil Bridger 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But it's still a good thing. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Martha Stewart's book club. JuJube 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all irrelevant collection of information.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Arbitrary criteria and indiscriminate info. Masaruemoto 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the same reasons noted above by others. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic purpose: This would help anyone exploring any aspect of extreme tallness or shortness and works better than a category because the researcher or browser might well want to look at those who are, for instance, very short or maybe somewhat short. If you want to know about human height and how humans deal with it, you want to search out articles on people who are notable for their height, and this would be an excellent place to start. Maintenance & verification: You can always find sources saying someone is unusually tall or short; if you can't, they don't belong on the list. I actually prefer a more subjective standard, because it focuses on what sources say is remarkably tall or short and it's really the remarks -- what somebody else thought was significant about the person's height -- that is of use here. Noroton 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is that just because one source says x is a small man, doesn't mean he is. So, unless this is a list of "everyone ever called small" then you are making a subjective judgment as to whether the source is correct. --Doc^g 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we're not here to establish what the truth is, we're here to establish what reliable sources say is the truth (that comes from Jimbo and from policy), and we can do that by reporting subjective as well as objective statements. In fact, we have to do that all the time. Journalists do the same thing.Noroton 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per all, all, all of the above. It's snowing. Henrik Ebeltoft 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is definitely not snowing. This is not a vote and there are serious objections being made to deletion. This is no consensus. Colonel Warden 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The PC basis for this proposal can be seen by considering other lists which are likewise based upon an extreme dimension such as: List of highest points in the United Kingdom, List of largest optical refracting telescopes, List of most massive stars. Such lists seem highly encyclopaedic as the evergreen reference Guinness Book of Records consists of little else. Colonel Warden 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not no consensus by any reasonable reading of the debate. Further, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not serve as a basis or justification for keeping this article. Otto4711 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A difficulty is that we, well you all I don't consider myself a Wikipedian, have featured lists that refer to height or length extremes. See List of tallest buildings in Providence, List of tallest buildings in San Francisco, or List of longest suspension bridge spans. If these had limited themselves to tallest or shortest people they might have done better.--T. Anthony 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than many precedents. Such common examples as List of fastest cars demonstrate the encyclopaedic nature of such lists. The main objection made above is that this is some sort of slur but that is obvious nonsense in the case of tall men, for example. This is not reason but I don't like it about which you seem to be notoriously unreasonable. Colonel Warden 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're choosing to dismiss serious concerns about policy and guideline violations with snotty little "you don't like it you notorious person you" attitude. The point still stands, you can point at whatever list you want and say "what about this?" and it does not make a whit of difference as to whether these lists pass the relevant policies and guidelines. The main objections to the lists include: there is no objective definition of what constitutes "tall" or "short" so the list suffers from WP:NPOV problems; the list suffers from impermissible original research issues; the list has WP:BLP implications; WP:NOT#IINFO concerns; WP:NOT#DIR concerns; WP:TRIVIA concerns. It's just a bit more serious than your flip attempt to dismiss it with "I don't like it" seems to take into account. Otto4711 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called me 'little'! No matter, all your insults are a small matter :). A person's height is not subjective - it is a quite precise measurement that, for example, might be officially recorded on their passport. As a personal characteristic, it is less subjective than eye-colour, say. Whether their height should appear in one of these lists is a matter of notability - a test that is routinely applied by you and other editors. In the case of someone like Bao Xishun, their notability is evident and reported widely. A list of such notable tall/small folk is highly objective and encyclopaedic. The list helps structure such information for our readership in a helpful way since it can rank the heights for comparison. Such lists based upon measurements of length, weight, speed, size, etc are commonplace in works of reference, as demonstrated above. Since they are routinely reported by such authorities as the Guinness Book of Records no original research is required. Colonel Warden 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is this was never limited to "tallest" or "shortest." I proposed that a few times, but never got much interest from editors and received some opposition. People at or over 7 foot 2 inches (218 cm) or at and under 4 foot (122 cm) are often going to be among the world's smallest or tallest.--T. Anthony 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a valid reason for keeping an article your examples would still be irrelevant. "List of highest points in the United Kingdom", "List of largest optical refracting telescopes", and "List of most massive stars" could only be quoted in support of "List of tallest men" etc. Phil Bridger 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted could "tallest men" or "shortest men" lists be allowed?--T. Anthony 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists cited above use the superlative form but they contain more than one entry and so are, in fact, list of massive, fast, large things. It's the content that matters, not the exact name and usage. Colonel Warden 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion An option which might be considered is to merge all four lists into one of People of unusual stature. This would rank the people by height and only include them if they were noted for this. The existing four lists could then be redirects. This would simplify maintenance and make the tone more neutral Colonel Warden 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's even more POV - define 'unusual'- usual for what and says who. Delete all subjective lists.--Doc^g 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual height is height that is reported as such by independent, reliable sources. This is our usual method and this is really no different. If you don't like the word 'unusual' then some synonym like 'exceptional' might be used instead. Colonel Warden 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing will not work. That one person once calls some "short" does not make it so. If I find a Washington Post columnist that once opined "George Bush seems like a very little man when you meet him" - can I put him on the list. I've got a source that says Napoleon was not exceptionally small - so can I remove him. THere's no way to be objective here.--Doc^g 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Napoleon discusses the matter at great length. His height is clearly notable but its exact value is unclear and so would best appear in a 'disputed/uncertain' section of the list. Not a problem and nothing that we aren't doing already in the main article Colonel Warden 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all That someone has a particular height is source-able, and that's all that is actually needed for WP:V. If the information is uncertain is can be so specified. No policy problem--the setting of specific heights makes it a discriminating and defensible list. DGG (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone has a particular height can be sourced, but how do you define "tall" and how do you define "short"? That is plain subjective. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an authority, we need verifiable and authoritative sources; and this is not an ethnocentric or a nation-centric encyclopedia. There is no way we are getting authoritative sources that define what is short and what is tall across cultures, races and nations. These lists are indiscriminate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this may well comply with WP:V, but that's not the only Wikipedia policy. It still fails on WP:NOT#DIR. Phil Bridger 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Perhaps with a change in titles to avoid offending those of a PC bent. Stature is a psychologically and socially significant aspect of human life, however regretfully some might regard this reality. Better citation, perhaps? But lack of citation is reason for improvement, not deletion. WP can, encyclopedically, include this information. Refactor to reduce PC objection. ww 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (got logged off somehow[reply]

Comment If these lists are to be kept (which I still oppose on WP:NOT#DIR grounds) then I would oppose a change of titles. The current titles are accurate descriptions and would be what readers would search for if they wanted this information. Political correctness is not a Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is as important as articles on height in general, however, I think it should have some more info on it (eg. "This section and so on is the top 99.99 percentile if human height). Also, I'd just like to point out that this has been nominated for deletion 4 times, with no consensus, and reimplemented after a deletion. That is quite enough of this article being nominated for deletion. Hell, with a bit of work, this could be a featured list. 96.225.64.203 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as inherently subjective lists, with entirely arbitrary criteria for inclusion: these lists are the very definition of 'indiscriminate collections of information'. Terraxos 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly: The definitions of indiscriminate collections of information do not cover this list. The closest it gets is "sprawling lists of statistics" but this list doesn't sprawl in a confusing way - it just lists notable examples of short people in order of height. This is not indiscriminate but rather is highly discriminating. Colonel Warden 23:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples noted at WP:NOT#IINFO are not exhaustive. And even if they were and these lists didn't fall under one of them, it still fails numerous other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The PC urge to protect the sensibilities of persons who are in some group is really a covert way for the PCist to assert his superiority over the members of that group and to assert domination over others. He says to the group members, "You are too weak to protect your own sensibilities, and unusually vulnerable emotionally to unintended slights. I, who am stronger, must protect you." This condescending urge, and it's concomitant baseless assertion of superiority, must be resisted. Drawyar 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your screed against political correctness in no way addresses the policy and guideline issues raised in the course of this AFD. Otto4711 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this comment is the only contribution Drawyar has ever made to Wikipedia. --Folantin 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the subjective nature of these articles is not a reason to delete them. The fact that they represent lists of different spans of men/women, which is a non-encyclopedic topic, is a good reason, as is the indiscriminate form they have assumed. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of tall men This article is clearly the best, and it should be kept. Freddy Krueger 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Farscape episodes. --Tikiwont 09:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're So Screwed Part III: La Bomba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/We're So Screwed Part III: La Bomba

This article has insuffient content, has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside Farscape series. Gavin Collins 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list. Disregarding the merge discussions at Talk:List_of_Farscape_episodes#Episode_notability for now, this episode doesn't even attempt to establish in-universe notability. Article can be recreated anytime as soon as real-world notability is established. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per sgeureka NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm particularly sensitive to BrownHairedGirl's and Iridescent's well argued cases for keeping this, and so I'm closing this as delete "pending the arrival of more verifiable information." The 1901 census data is good and establishes amply that the place exists as a historical and geographical entity; however it provides little context. Were this discussion on the borderline I would not hesitate to close it as a keep both on the basis of this slim context, and also of our history of keeping even the slightest of geographical stubs. However the argument has not persuaded the community in this case. There is consensus to delete the current incarnation of this article. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Note: non-admin closure. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry, County Sligo

Procedural nomination. This unsourced stub has been tagged for speedy & PROD for the same concerns, both of which tags were contested. For the sake of wider review, it's being brought here. I have no opinion on the subject, but the tagger asserts that: "This article refers to somewhere that is nothing more than a name on some maps, not even a collection of houses. To even call it a townland is pushing it." Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually in favour of keeping pretty much all real places, but townlands, which can be under an acre in size and which there are some 60,000 in Ireland, just don't cut it. This would be roughly the equivalent of having an article on my backyard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging by the townlands article, the size is very variable, "from as small as half an acre (2,000 m²) ... up to more than seven thousand acres (28 km²) " So how big is this one, is size or population? There isnt enough information in the article to tell.DGG (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't seem to be a population per se. There may be homes or farms within its area, but it isn't a settlement or village. Note that it isn't listed on the county website's list of towns, nor does it appear on this really cool and detailed map even as a "village". The very name "townland" is confusing because it suggests the land of a town, but in reality it's more of a very small measurement of (usually rural) land. The townland article explains how the term came about. Note that none of this is to say that there aren't indeed some quite notable tounlands, such as Feakle, known for its music festival, and others. But not all of them are notable any more than every farm or yard in the US is notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I already wrote on the page: "As the article says it may well just be a very small townland and not notable, or only known to the locals. Have a look at this, though the data may well be identical to fallingrain's details. Also look at this result page and see how many Derry's there are in Ireland that are not yet on this disambiguation page. Either way, this should really get a speedy tag unless we can substantiate it better." ww2censor 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as the editor who originally contested the {{prod}}. While I wouldn't necessarily support the creation of articles on every townland, I see no reason not to keep those articles that do exist. There's ample precedent in Category:Townlands of Ireland for such articles. Since this is a named geographic area, policy and precedent both point to keeping it, in the same way we keep all articles on their direct equivalent, Communes of France. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagarde-d'Apt for a virtually identical article; while I've expanded Lagarde-d'Apt slightly since the AfD, at the time of the AfD it looked like this and still resulted in a unanimous keep.) — iridescent 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but there is no verifiable data that this place really exists, notable or not. I cannot find any evidence of it in any official Gazetteer, or other document issued by the Irish government stationary office or OSI, so unless you have a primary source for this townland, it deserves to go. Provide data and I will support a keep. ww2censor 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Iridescent, you say above I see no reason not to keep those articles that do exist. This article, however, was only created 6 days ago, with no further information than that it is a townland. --The.Q^(t)(c) 14:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's the 1901 census; search on Townland=Derry, County=Sligo and (while you'll get some false positives from Derrysallagh, Gortaderry etc), you'll clearly see that as of 1901 this particular Derry has 10 households for approximately 40 inhabitants. — iridescent 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment Also, don't know where that "it doesn't show on maps" is coming from - enter "Derry, County Sligo" as a search term on Google Maps and it comes up just fine. — iridescent 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Just to point out, the Derry, County Sligo shown on Google maps is a different one from the Derry of the article, which is over 45 km away. --The.Q^(t)(c) 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Irish rural geography doesn't fit the patterns of countries like Denmark, where a concentrated settlement pattern arose under feudalism and is sustained to this day (the same applies to a lesser extent in many parts of England). However, the population of rural Ireland has traditionally been dispersed, and it still remains dispersed, so a cutoff point in a geographical hierarchy which makes sense elsewhere would exclude large chunks of the population of rural Ireland. To add to the differences, Ireland is almost unique in western Europe in having seen over a century of population decline in the aftermath of An Gorta Mór, particularly in Connacht which remains littered not just with depopulated townlands but with whole abandoned villages (some abandoned as recently as the 1950s). Laments for the emigration belong somewhere else, but the historical depopulation is highly relevant to an encyclopedia because while a recentist approach would prioritise places currently populated, it would also undermine the ability of wikipedia to accurately portray the historical geography of Ireland. Townlands are the building blocks of Irish rural geography, and we should have more articles on them, not fewer. The Derry, County Sligo article needs expansion and more references, but it's a real place in a county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As the original user who firstly nominated this article for WP:Speedy then WP:PROD, I submit this should be deleted, as I said at the time, "This article refers to somewhere that is nothing more than a name on some maps, not even a collection of houses. To even call it a townland is pushing it." --The.Q^(t)(c) 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A little history on this article wouldn't go amiss here, to put it into some context for others.

On 24-Jul-2005, Derry, County Sligo was added to Derry (disambiguation) as a placename in the Republic of Ireland (see this diff) by User:Henrygb.

On 21-Jul-2007, User:81.152.144.6 added Derry, County Sligo to the list of Towns and villages in County Sligo (see this diff). Two days later, I removed it from that list, with an edit summary of place does not exist (see this diff), as it was a redlink, and I had never heard of this town or village, and couldn't find out anything about it locally.

Approximately two weeks later, on 06-Aug-2007, User:81.152.144.209, started this conversation, giving a map reference to a placename called Derry, off the N4 road near Riverstown, County Sligo. The same user also posted similarly on the talk page of Sarah777. I used the map co-ordinates given to find the location on Google maps which points to a place called Ballindoon. Living in the area, I took it upon myself to originate some WP:OR, and, a few days later, I passed through the location, which is an unremarkable crossroads of two local roads. I took some photos, which I've just posted on Flickr (can't seem to upload to wikipedia or commons), here, here and here. These photos show what's at the crossroads, i.e., one house with some signposts.

On 31-Oct-2007, User:Egdirf created the Derry, County Sligo article. On 05-Nov-2007, I began the process of getting this page deleted, and here we are. Since this AfD started, the page has changed, and now appears to refer to a place near Grange, about 45 km away. Also, the links to the 1901 census above, refer to the same place near Grange. In my opinion, neither of these places is notable, and I am not aware of any reason why they should be included in this encycolpedia.--The.Q^(t)(c) 13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who created the Derry, County Sligo page, and also the anonymous IP mentioned above who both added it to the County Sligo article and posted questions on the relevant talk pages after it was removed. It was as a result of the discussion on Sarah777's talk page that I went on to create the article, having got the impression that the place exists. Obviously it's unfortunate if the article has to be deleted, but if it's not really that notable, and there's such strong feeling that it should go, then who am I to argue? Egdirf 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, though, why hasn't it ever been deleted from the Derry (disambiguation) page in the two years that it's been there? Surely people have noticed its presence before now? If the article is deleted, then someone should remove the link to prevent further confusion. If it remains, the fact that it is there could (wrongly) suggest a need for an article to be written. Egdirf 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought you may have been one and the same person, Egdirf, as the anon users, but didn't like to speculate. While I have nominated the article as strong delete, I won't be losing any sleep if it stays. I hope you're not taking this in any way personally, it certainly isn't. --The.Q^(t)(c) 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm cool about it, and won't be too concerned if the article is deleted. There are lots of other things out there to write about. Egdirf 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As The Q and I are the resident Sligonians here, I would certainly like The Q if he has ever been to or heard of this "Derry" - I certainly aint and I know pretty much all of County Sligo. I dont think it is a notable location/place - however, I could be persuaded otherwise.--Vintagekits 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But don't you live at the other end of the county, Vk? My time in Sligo is mostly spent in the northern half of a county which is topgraphically split by the Garavogue, crossable only on three congested bridges. The time involved in crossing the river makes Sligo an unusually bisected county, in my experience it's quite usual for people from South Sligo to have less knowledge of the northern part of the county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not talking for VK (I wouldn't dare! :P) or where he may live, but I lived most of my life in town, and now live (for the last 6+ years) in the south end of the county, but would know the north part of the county quite well, and I've never heard of either Derry near Grange or near Riverstown. I've just got a new GPS (happy brithday to me!) and over the next few days, I'll have to try it out, so I'm going to see if I can find either of these places on it. More WP:OR, but who cares! --The.Q^(t)(c) 12:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm from town also but know the county well from playing music and football as a kid and teenager around the county. I never heard of either one in Grange or Riverstown.--Vintagekits 21:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If even local residents are unaware of the existence of the place, it clearly is not notable. --lk 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Even without the withdrawal of the nomination there was not quite enough support for deletion. TerriersFan 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Garden Grove, Garden Grove, California

This page is not about a city although it appears to be one. West Garden Grove is the "niche" name given to the west side of the town of Garden Grove by its residents and only by its residents, it is not recognized by the actual City of Garden Grove as a separate entity. While I can understand wanting the page, it is not a "real" place and lacks notability. It does not have a mayor separate from Garden Grove, it does not have a school district separate from Garden Grove Unified School District. It is not a city regardless of its attempt at appearing as such. IrishLass0128 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination. Don't know how to do it officially so if an admin could handle that, I'd appreciate it. The drama here and the abusive accusations on my talk page are too much. It's just not worth continuing the debate. IrishLass0128 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and merge any useful info to Garden Grove, California. There is nothing to distinguish this as a distinct community except for some trivial statistics. —dust mite 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparently the richer half of the city, more or less demarcated by its zip code. Neighborhoods can be notable if they are referred to frequently as such outside of real estate ads. Delete unless such evidence can be found, there is none at present. DGG (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not the "richer" part, it's essentially the more expensive part to buy a house in. There are fewer apartments on the west side of the city and most of the homes are pricey, when they go on the market, but a large portion of the population have owned their homes since the late 60's early 70's so their mortgages are low. Houses in certain neighborhoods get passed from parent to child when the parent retires. The article lists median income as $25,000 which is not considered wealthy. $25,000 is approximately $12 an hour. While that wage is good in some states, it's barely getting by in California. Just wanted to clarify that it is a self-segregated part of town, but it is not recognized outside of the immediate proximity. IrishLass0128 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - It is an area of Garden Grove that is distinct from the rest of the city from an economic and diversity standpoint. Articles on other cities, like nearby Long Beach, have separate articles on neighborhoods within the city. So although West Garden Grove is not a separate governmental unit, it is a notable neighborhood with its own residents association (www.wggra.org) that should have its own article. Alanraywiki 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the articles on the various Long Beach neighborhoods, you'll see that the bulk of them (like Terminal Island and Bluff Park) include some information about the history and unique "flavor" of the locality in question. This article, however, presents nothing but statistics about income and population that do not speak to a unique cultural or historical identity for this area. If some sourced information in that regard were added, I would be inclined to change my vote. —dust mite 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having a website and residents association does not make an area notable. Communities all across the country have their own websites. Anyone can create a website. As for it's own "economic and diversity" separate from the rest of Garden Grove, it is no different than other self-proclaimed "we're better than you are" area (note the 82% white ratio verses the rest of the minorities) of any city. Notability means that someone not born there would acknowledge it to be different and worthy. It does not play home to any great landmark, it does not have an exceptional sports team, it doesn't have a shopping mall, the Crystal Cathedral is not in West Garden Grove, it lacks notability on many, many levels. Google only hits on Wikipedia, WGG's own website, and many real estate sites. That adds to the argument for deletion. Thank you IrishLass0128 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment, not only is the Crystal Cathedral not in west Garden Grove, it is about as far as you can get from west Garden Grove without actually leaving the city. In fact, if you're there and you lean too far east, you're in Orange. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - how is 82.4% white diversity? That sure doesn't sound diverse to me. CelticGreen 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. It is different from the rest of Garden Grove because it is less diverse, not more. And I'm not making any statement as to whether that is good or bad, and certainly not that they are better than the rest of the city . . . just that the demographics are different. Alanraywiki 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being elitist doesn't make one noteworthy. Any city can find a 4 by 4 square mile block that has a different demographic than other parts of the city. Being white and dense isn't a noteworthy reason to have an article. Just because there's a neighborhood with a bunch of white people in a city doesn't make it noteworthy. CelticGreen 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this seems to be a rather personal issue about those darn folks from West Garden Grove being "elitist" and "white and dense" (I assume that means population density and not an insult about their intelligence, though the term "white and dense" makes little sense either way). All cities of any reasonable size have sections with differing characteristics. These are commonly called "neighborhoods". West Garden Grove seems to be a rather well-defined neighborhood, with numerous civic and community organizations using it as an identifying characteristic, and people outside it resenting the fact that the people in West Garden Grove are differenr. The article provides a rather clearly-defined description of the outlines and borders of this neighborhood. West Garden Grove seems to be different from the rest of Garden Grove and seems to have raised much loathing from the other Garden Groveans (or Garden Grovites, as the case may be). As defined by WP:OUTCOMES, "Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage." The hundreds upon hundreds of articles that reference "West Garden Grove" in a Google News Archive search demonstrate that this is "verifiable widespread usage". If I had access to Lexis/Nexis, I'm sure I could find a few thousand more. Wikipedia standards of notability have been met. Alansohn 06:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voter's Comment - I just struckout my vote. I thought about the area more and more, and although the area is certainly distinct from the rest of Garden Grove, I find it difficult to determine what makes it notable. And I'm changing this despite the comments I perceive as rude made by CelticGreen on my user page as well as her own. I'm done with this article. Alanraywiki 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voter's Comment, part II - I have changed my vote to delete because I was unable to justify its notability. I reviewed a history book of Garden Grove (The Town of Garden Grove by Leroy Doig). It's an older book (1966) that may be a little tough to find. I found it in the rare book collection at our university library, but it is a published source. The most notable thing I could find relating to that area of Garden Grove was in 1929 when Garden Grove Boulevard became connected to 7th Street in Long Beach and gave Long Beach a direct truck route inland (I guess this is before Seal Beach moved a little inland). Other than that, I did not see anything notable as far as history goes. Most of the growth came with the building of tract homes in the 60s and 70s. So, although it is a distinct neighborhood, I do not see it as notable. Alanraywiki 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Garden Grove, California Not notable enough for its own article, but deserves a mention in the main city article NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to change your vote. If you merge, you gotta redirect - GFDL requirements and all that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Garden Grove, California. Speaking as a former resident of that city myself for about 5.5 years, I can assure you that the west end of Garden Grove is no more notable than any other part. It is simply part of Garden Grove. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would leave the page open to being reimplemented (seen it more than a few times). There's no reason to redirect when deletion is an option and there's nothing really necessary in the article to be merged, most of it is already in the Garden Grove article. And I'll see your 5.5 and raise you 40. Believe me, I know that only citizens and former citizens recognize West in front of Garden Grove. IrishLass0128 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on that. I'm open to deletion, but am partial to a redirection; if we do a redir, a hard protect would probably be useful if it becomes a target of reimplementation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable enough and too much content for constructive merge. Many notable neighbourhood articles exist on wikipedia. Decoratrix 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is used by area residents and is regularly used in the media to refer to the area. That the area is not recognized by the city is irrelevant. There are thousands of such articles for unincorporated areas census-designated places, communities and neighborhoods, in such places as New York City, Newark, New Jersey and Los Angeles, California, among hundreds of other incorporated places nationwide. As with West Garden Grove, none of these places are incorporated as cities, have their own government or school districts, and the lack of official designation is no impediment to an article. Alansohn 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is and West Garden Grove outside of the city has none. If it's so "widely used in the media", then prove it. That's the point of the discussion, proving notability. West Garden Grove is part of the City of Garden Grove and serviced by the city, it is NOT an unincorporated area. It has always been part of the City of Garden Grove. It's residents, however, feel that they are special and should be designated separately. That is not true. IrishLass0128 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to chime in again. The only time I've seen it used in the media is when Samantha Runnion was killed a few years ago - and even that is marginal. My !vote, as such, stands. --21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs)

Agreed and researched Google search reveals no hits in the media for the full phrase of "West Garden Grove." Samantha lived in Stanton. IrishLass0128 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News Archive search on "West garden Grove" finds over 1,000 uses of "West Garden Grove" referencing the area and local organizations and facilities that use the name, with sources dating back to the early 1970s and used throughout the intervening decades. I couldn't give a crap that the area is not officially recognized by the city, that it is not incorporated or that you feel that the residents of the area are uppity snobs who look down on the local yokels who reside in what I presume is East Garden Grove. The repeated use of the name is clearly established in the media with hundreds upon hundreds of reliable and verifiable sources to clearly meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The burden is now firmly on you to demonstrate that this anything more than a WP:INOTLIKEIT tantrum as evidence by your statement that "It's [sic] residents, however, feel that they are special". Alansohn 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath. Having lived there for 40 years, I have considerable inside knowledge, which prohibits me from editing the article due to POV but it does give me insight into the workings of the community. West Garden Grove is not an unincorporated portion of the town, it is part of Garden Grove and is only called West Garden Grove by its residents (and some designations like sports teams where there is also an east, central, north and south league as well as library locations). I don't know what you are trying to link to in WP:INOTLIKEIT tantrum or why you are calling my comments a tantrum when I'm simply stating facts that in the current media, there is not notability. I, again, don't know why you keep harping on the fact that you "don't give a crap that the area is not officially recognized by the city" when I've clearly stated it is part of the city, not a separate entity unto itself. Have you been there, did you live there at one time? I ask because if you did you would have inner knowledge. I provided searches and I don't understand the allegations hurled at me, but I will not do the same. This is no temper tantrum, it's a fact that the article lacks notability. And a last FYI, the first 6 articles I clicked on didn't actually link to articles. At one time, before new schools were added, there were east and west high schools, but their names were changed. The issue is geographic notability as an actual location, not if a school's name was once east and or west. IrishLass0128 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places are notable as long as there is demonstrable use of the term, which has been satisfied one thousand times over. The first six references to the "West Garden Grove" you claim doesn't exist all refer to the location as a place name, and you still haven't proffered a reason to reject the 1,014 other references to the name in the Google News Archive search linked above. I appreciate your distaste for the term "West Garden Grove", and I am not forcing you (or teh City of ~~Cedar~~ Garden Grove) to use the term, but the fact that you live there and I don't does nothing to support the fact that you want the article deleted because you just don't like the term. There is no requirement that it need be an incorporated entity. There are thousands of articles for neighborhoods, hamlets and census-designated places, none of which are incorporated bodies with any official status or recognition. As WP:NOTABILITY has been established with flying colors, and assuming you're finished with your deep breath, can you point to any part of Wikipedia policy that requires a place to be incorporated to merit an article? Alansohn 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:OUTCOMES, which states that "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size", but that "Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage." I think 100 articles using the term would be proof of "verifiable widespread usage". One thousand plus articles proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Alansohn 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established? Where? I looked at your list and it's a bunch of articles that link to the LATimes but not to stories and groups that have an east and west, as noted above. I think other users should weigh in instead of you and IrishLass0128 fighting. It's very unproductive but amusing if nothing else. And since you don't even know the name, it's Garden Grove, not Cedar Grove, I have to wonder about your objective opinion since you aren't looking at the article, or so it seems. You seem to really be missing the point that it's not a separate entity from the city, just the other end of the place.CelticGreen 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, here, I'm going to fill in where I'm coming from. I certainly acknowledge that distinctive districts of cities - especially those with a history and some notability - will be found on here. Case in point, here, you can travel about twenty minutes due east and wind up in Anaheim Hills, California, or go about twelve hundred miles north to the general area where I now live and find Eastgate and Factoria - both neighborhoods in Bellevue, Washington. But on the other hand, you don't have east Yorba Linda, California, or for up here, you don't have articles for Juanita and Houghton - the latter two of which are neighborhoods in Kirkland, Washington. I will accept that this looks like sort of the opposite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the point I am trying to make here is that there is a precedent for districts or subdivisions with notability, and in the case of west Garden Grove, the only distinction it has is that it is the more affluent part of town, and as user:Alansohn points out, several organizations have used the location name in their names. Last I checked, however, neither of those two fall under the constraints of WP:N. On the other hand, a check with USPS lists the zip code 92845 (distinctively for west Garden Grove) as nothing more than Garden Grove (not even a "Not acceptable" listing if you look here for the zip code), and ditto for east Yorba Linda (92887), whereas 98034 (the part of Kirkland where I now live) is distinctively Kirkland - yet Kingsgate, Juanita, and in this case, Totem Lake are listed, though as "Not Acceptable" - and in the case of Houghton (98033), you are instructed not to use Houghton, but Kirkland. Even in the case of 92807 and -08 (Anaheim Hills zip codes), you are instructed to use simply Anaheim, but the use of Anaheim Hills is acknowledged. A similar case exists for Factoria and Eastgate. I would think, then, that the case of this existing as acknoweldged by the US Postal Service would be another key here - not strict, but it helps. My !vote, accordingly, stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Actually does lack notability.CelticGreen 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What standard of notability does this actually lack? Have you read the article? Alansohn 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Please stop attacking people with opposing opinions to yours. I can vote how I want for whatever reasons I want. And I make my own decisions. I don't see the notability and I've read and understand the arguments from the two editors that disagree with you. You've thrown out assumptions to other editors, shown lack of good faith to the original nominator, and basically attacked opposing opinions. I looked at both Google searches, yours lacked real links and the other had no hits. 1000 random hits doesn't necessarily mean credible or notable especially when you look at the linked hits. I've lived in many places, I've heard of Newark, most people have, so using that as reference to back you claim is lacking in weight. Your archive search lacks merit and includes clubs in a city where there's east and west of different variables. It also includes search results that require you to pay for the article which notoriously are misleading. Stop bullying people. It's not nice and doesn't lend to a positive resolve to a discussion. CelticGreen 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Alansohn - you seem to be assuming a lot of things that are not true. You accuse me of "not liking the name" which is far from the truth. You make up some term WP:INOTLIKEIT that you have yet to explain. And you attack other editors who just want to "vote" and move on. You assume that those in opposition are only individuals who have lived there. By my count only two of us that have weighed in are from there. AND ~ Why would I not like the name of the city I grew up in for 40 years? A city where part of my family still lives. I am not ashamed, as you assumed, I do not dislike the name. I am, however, a rational person who knows that West Garden Grove is not a notable enough community outside of it's own area. I live where there is a "north", "south", "east", and "west", high school all of the same last name. That does not make 4 separate cities, it makes it one large city with high schools just using their point/side of the city as a designation. Many areas have east and west portions of a city but it doesn't make their area noteworthy. The reason this was nominated, regardless of your opinion of why it was nominated, is because it is by and large not notable. Your links are old, outdated, and do not accurately reflect the area or the issue. You link to several articles that ask you to pay to read them or are incomplete. There are two searches, one produces no links, the other produces some outdated links where the useage of "West Garden Grove" is actually "west" (lower case) which would denote location, not name. I stand by my nomination that WGG is not notable enough to have an article. IrishLass0128 13:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. The proper term for pushing for deletion of an article with no valid reason other than one's distaste for the subject is WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and not WP:INOTLIKEIT). Either with the typo or without, it's an invalid argument for deletion. The fact that some of the 1,000+ plus available sources require payment is irrelevant, as the sources make clear use of "West Garden Grove" as a name to describe a well-defined community within Garden Grove. If the payment issue is what truly bothers you, ignore all of those requiring payment to read the article and come up with a rebuttal for the several hundred that don't. The fact that some of these references are "old" only proves that the term has been in longstanding use, only adding to the value of these usages and further supporting the fact that the neighborhood "exists". The source which your fellow Irish, female soap opera devotee User:CelticGreen has attempted to delete on a few occasions, which states that "Some residents in west Garden Grove (although city officials don't like to call it that)..." was carefully chosen to demonstrate that residents of the area use the term, even if City Hall doesn't. A search for "West Garden Grove" on the Garden Grove city website shows 37 results, including mentions of the "West Garden Grove Branch", "West Garden Grove Reservoir", "West Garden Grove Little League" and "West Garden Grove Residents Association", but uses lower case when referring to "west Garden Grove" in general, a likely effort to avoid giving any official recognition of the neighborhood which might lend credence to a possible secession drive. I'm sure that there are thousands of other potential neighborhood articles that could be created, including ones for North, South, East and West IrishLassVille; The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is yet another invalid reason for deletion. As to the reasons you've offered for deletion, you have indicated that this is just some "self-proclaimed we're better than you are" area. I understand your feelings of distaste at such snobbery, but that too is an invalid justification for deletion, it just doesn't have a name yet. Alansohn 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn Now I'm pissed and I'll admit it. You need to STOP with the assumptions and accusations NOW! I'm sick to death of you thinking I don't like my home town. STOP IT NOW! Seriously, get over yourself, stop assuming and start reading what the article says and the lack of validity for an article. Read what's written, not what you think is there. The END. You are SO not worth my time. I stand by my original nomination, get over it. IrishLass0128 14:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, there are a lot of subjects distasteful to me that I don't like and I don't "push for their deletion", so you can drop that accusation too. I can think of a dozen subjects I would love to not see, but you don't see me nominating them. I nominated this one for the reasons stated, stop with the accusations and lies. IrishLass0128 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, both of you, please chill out, 'k? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Garden Grove, California. The fact that local residents refer to their part of the city as something other than the city name doesn't make it notable. Arthur 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone here inclined to keep should also check out WP:LOCAL - a cursory re-read indicates that this article won't hold up to that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Dennis The Tiger, WGG does not meet most of that criteria. And thank you Alanraywiki for researching the city. I maintain lack of notability and stand, again, by the nonimation. IrishLass0128 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis site has community articles of communities that are much smaller than this one, and are much less notable. Should we delete all those too? How about the 23,000 cities that have populations less that West Garden Grove's 16,000 residents. Delete those too? How about all those cities or "places" with populations between 1 and 200 where there is no proof that they even exist, should those go too? How about El Modena, Orange, California, Orange Park Acres, Orange Hills, Orange, California, Talega, San Clemente, California, Newport Coast, Newport Beach, California, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California, Capistrano Beach, California, Monarch Beach, Dana Point, California, and thousands of others in other couties which are FAR less notable and less populous than West Garden Grove, how about those? I can go on and on. If this one is deleted, I will personally ensure that all those are deleted too because there is NO reason those others are any different than West Garden Grove. Also, I want to contest what you call "lack of difference". It has definate differences from the rest of the city. It is connected to the city by 1 road! Look at the map, it is practically separate from the main body of the city. Its independent location warrants independent material. Plus, its demographics are extremely different. 85% white versus 30% white is a BIG difference. Sorry, I see no merit in deleting this article.75.43.219.145 06:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what map you are looking at, but Lampson, Chapman, and Garden Grove Blvd. are all major east-west arteries that connect the areas. There is a barely a break in the homes of this bedroom community except for some light industrial areas. I agree that the demographics are different than the rest of Garden Grove, and that was one of the reasons I originally voted to keep (but later changed). I also agree that a number of the communities you listed are not notable enough for their own articles and should be removed. Some, such as Balboa Island, are small but notable so they should be retained. Others, such as Talega and Monarch Beach, should probably be deleted. Size is not the determining factor . . . rather, notability. Alanraywiki 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

250px Look at this map of Garden Grove. The western portion of red is COMPLETELY cut off from the rest of the city. How can you sit there and say that they are connected? It is practiaclly detached from the rest of the city. Also, type in Balboa Island, Newport Beach on Google. You will get 1,640,000 entries. Type in West Garden Grove and you get 1,510,000 entries. There is hardly a difference between notability. So are we setting a new trend that if a community article does not have more than 1.5 million links on google, it must be deleted because it isnt notable? That is what you are saying when you say West Garden Grove is not notable enough. Your contractictory rhetoric is totally ridiculous becuase frankly Balboa Island should go, and so should all the other communities in this county and in the US for that matter. If a community with 16,000 people, 1.5 million links on google, mostly detached from the main body of the city, and has its own community association isnt notable enough, then 95% of the community articles on this site arent notable enough either. I am sorry, but your logic, or lack thereof, does not hold up to the evidence presented.75.43.195.101 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note however if you type in "West Garden Grove" (with the quotes) you get a far more accurate count of 35,500. The 1.5 million you mention do not apply specifically to West Garden Grove, they apply to any article with ANY of the three terms in it, including for example Garden Grove. For reference, using "Balboa Island" gets 179,000, which is 5 times what "West Garden Grove" gets. If (and that's a big if) we're going to use Google as a standard, let's at least be sure we get an accurate count. Arthur 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 Balboa Island's in the US that I have found. So divide that number by 4 and you are pretty close to West Garden Grove. You are barking up an empty tree because everything you have said has been fairly wrong. I dont even see you trying to discount the other facts about West Garden Grove (how its detached from the city, its 16,000 person population, its difference in demographics, and the fact that it has a Residents Association) has not even been rebutted by you. I would also like to go further and say that this Request for Deletion needs to be redone because it was introduced giving people wrong information about the community. The way the intro is worded-its no wonder there are so many "no's"75.43.195.101 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always find anonymous IP addresses voting "interesting" to say the least. Just makes me wonder. That said, the original nomination was done by someone who grew up there. She gave Alanraywiki a whole rundown on the area that was interesting. People don't vote, most at least, on the nomination but rather the article. I voted based on the article and the arguments and argumentors here. CelticGreen 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone that grew up there? If they grew up in the main body of the city, of course they would be opposed to this article! They wouldnt want another part of their city to seem better than their own. Ask people who grew up, or live in "West" Garden Grove, not just Garden Grove, and I bet the response will be different. Also, why do you have a problem with Anons? Were still people. I think you need to focus on the article and this discussion and not "ventilate" at the voters for whom you think you are free to attack. Attack the page, not the people. Thanks. 75.43.195.101 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You might want to go read the comments on Alanraywiki's page. She grew up in West Garden Grove, not the main body. Please stop placing comments after the original nom, all comments go at the bottom of the discussion. CelticGreen 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have all kinds of neighborhood articles in Wikipedia, even categories of them. We even have "census designated places" all over Wikipedia. It's what we do and it's encyclopedic.Noroton 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what's in the article meets WP:N, and what's not in the article, as shown at Google News Archives indicates it handily meets WP:N. Noroton 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for "Keeping: West Garden Grove has a population of 16,000 residents, has its own association, is detached from the main body of the city (only connected by 1 road), and has a distinct demographic composition. If we delete this article, then virtually every community article on this site would have to be deleted for lack of "notability". If 16,000 people and 1.5 million hits on google isnt notable, then most of the communities on this site arent notable. Even some of the communities in this county, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, Talega, and Capistrano Beach, have fewer people than West Garden Grove, they dont have community asociations like West Garden Grove does, and they bring up the same (if not fewer) hits on google. If you are questioning this page, those are to be questioned as well. 75.43.195.101 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - West Garden Grove does not have 1.5 million hits on google. Pages that contain one or more the the words "west" and "garden" and "grove" in any order has that number. "West Garden Grove" as a phrase has only 35,000 hits, and some portion of that is definitely related to forums, blogs, etc. Another portion of it is related to things with "West Garden Grove" in their name, which also doesn't relate to the neighborhood notability. Using raw numbers from google to establish notability is tricky business. Better to stick to WP:RS Arthur 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was initially against keeping this article, but the ignorance of those who want to keep it is really disturbing. I see someone trying to add necessary information to paint a clear picture of the situation to the introduction, and the opposition keeps trying to delete it because it opposes their views. It is extremely cowardly and makes for an unfair vote (this whole vote is corrupt as I see it). It is pathetic, and I hope people can see right through you (User:CelticGreen, User:Esanchez7587). Also, how can you argue with the evidence. The population, the google hits, and the comparison to other communities in the US speaks for itself, this article should stay. Marinidil 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm currious about the accusation. See right through what? That I agree with IrishLass, Alanraywiki, and Dennis the Tiger? That's all I did and got attacked for it. Last night I didn't do anything other than try and keep the nomination in order of the comments place not allowing people to put their comments above others. I deleted nothing, I only put the comments in order. A look at the complete edits will show that. I didn't even comment last night other than to say I believed that IrishLass grew up in West Garden Grove, not east. I don't understand the accusations of "cowardly" as I deleted nothing. CelticGreen 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recomment: the account hurling accusations at myself and Esanchez7587 was created specifically to make the accusations they did. They are under the impression I or Esanches removed content, which is far from true. What both of us did was to fix the vandalism to the page without removing any arguments. It's sad, really, the way events transpired over the last few hours, including comments on talk pages, are completely unwarranted. CelticGreen 14:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually an old user who created this account so that I dont get blocked for some reason on my base account. I know that this stuff gets be all irritated because it is so unfair and one sided, and if I did anything dumb, I didnt want to do it on my account I have had for 2 years. Sorry, your little "theory" is as lame as your excuse for deleting this page. Marinidil 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you ADMITTEDLY created a sockpuppet to comment on this account. Thanks. I'll be reporting that. CelticGreen 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh save it. There is nothing wrong with that if the sock isnt abusive or of a banned user. Get over yourself and find a hobby. Marinidil 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

And that's not abusive? Your comments on other editors pages aren't abusive? You called me a coward for moving comments to the correct order. You've violated WP:CIVIL by telling others to "get over themselves" and calling names. How is that not in violation of policy by hiding behind a sockpuppet you admited to creating so you could be abusive with this account while keeping your old account?CelticGreen 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at that map, it looks like the community is pretty distant from the main body of the city. Plus, there are so many communities on Wiki, and many articles not relating to communities that are far less notable than this one. The idea of an encyclopedia like this one is to make it easy for a person to find ANYTHING they want, including small communities like this one. I see nothing wrong with this page. E212122 19:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Comment from banned user:Ericsaindon2 stricken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Looking at a Thomas Brothers map gives you a better idea that the City of Stanton has a quite narrow strip on either side of Beach Blvd. that separates the two. It's really not as big as it appears on Google. However, if someone has a published source on WHY Stanton cuts through like that, it may make the area more notable. Was Garden Grove one solid area and then Stanton somehow annexed the middle part? Or did Garden Grove go around Stanton to take over what were probably strawberry fields and poultry farms at the time to build out suburbs? A story like that may make the article worth keeping on its own rather than merging it. Just a thought. Alanraywiki 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you can get a lot of information from a cities previous resolutions that they make at council meetings (annexations, new laws, rules, etc.), but Garden Grove is odd in that it does not publically post its past resolutions, which most cities do. I will look into this fact though because it is definately unusual to have a city conneced to a community by one road like Garden Grove does.Marinidil 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why you insist that WGG is connected to the central and eastern portions of Garden Grove by one road when Alanraywiki has clearly stated that it's three roads, and per mapquest, the 22 freeway. CelticGreen 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is connected by 1 road WITHOUT going through other cities to get there. Marinidil 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per Mapquest it's connected by Chapman, Lampson, Garden Grove Blvd, and the 22 freeway without going through another city. That's 4 roads. There's also a street called Orangewood but I can't quite tell if it goes through Stanton or not, it brushes against it. CelticGreen 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alanraywiki-Do you think mentioning the fact that West Garden Grove is represented seaparetely from Garden Grove by the state and county is notable enough for mentioning. It is in a different State Assembly District from the rest of the city, it is in a different County Supervisors District, and it is in a different California State Senate district. What do you think? Marinidil 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal guidelines dictate that by population and some cities are divided based on census numbers, not location, and citation is always helpful. CelticGreen 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think legislative representation is a hard argument to make. For example, Senator Harman's web site (the state senator for the West Garden Grove area) shows that his district includes PART of Buena Park, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster. Having part of a city is not unusual, particularly in Southern California where they all run together anyway. Alanraywiki 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic, you have to go through Stanton using Orangewood, Lampson, and Chapman to get bettwen Garden Grove and WGG, and through Westminster on the 22 freeway to get to West Garden Grove. There is a break in the city limits in ALL roads within Garden Grove/West Garden Grove except for Garden Grove Blvd. Marinidil 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's CelticGREEN to you. The map I looked at says Stanton stops before Orangewood. Chapman and Lampson do not go through Stanton according to mapquest or google maps.CelticGreen 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 edition of the Thomas Guide (I know, old school) shows Stanton as going past Orangewood down to GG Blvd. It's only a couple of blocks wide, but for some strange reason the Stanton limits go along that corridor. So if this guide is correct, the street you and I mentioned do indeed connect all parts of Garden Grove, but must go through a couple of blocks of Stanton to get there. By the way, I skipped Orangewood because it starts in Cypress and doesn't turn into GG until it passes Knott. But the Garden Grove Freeway certainly connects them. Alanraywiki 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CG-refer to page 797 of the Orange/LA County Thomas Guide. You will clearly see that West Garden Grove is only connected to Garden Grove by 1 road, Garden Grove Blvd. Traveling on the other roads, you must go through the Stanton city limits. You will clearly see this in the Thomas Guide. Marinidil 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Even the 22 freeway goes through Westminster for about .25 miles before it connects WGG and GG.Marinidil 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Listen Skippy ~ it's not Celtic, it's not CG, it's CelticGreen. Stop being rude. CelticGreen 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK. It saves time though, I wasnt doing it in spite of you. Marinidil 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's "in spite of" ~ regardless, your admission of sockpuppetry is enough to discount your arguments. Add to that your rudeness, nothing you say holds much weight, IMO. You purposely created an account to argue for an article. Things that make you go hmmmmm. CelticGreen 03:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, every admin has told you I havent done anything wrong. Look at this [8]. It clearly states that I have created a legitimate account. This is what it states A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. I have done nothing wrong, and I am not using this for abusive purposes. Please argue the topic and place complaints about me on my talk page, it contributes nothing to the topic at hand. Marinidil 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion and NO, EVERY admin has not agreed with you. One did, one didn't. No others weighed in. Your rudeness and disrespect eminates reason to discount your opinion. You've done several things wrong, you've been uncivil, you've made false accusations, you've created a sockpuppet to hide behind. In general you are a deceptive individual with no credibility who points to pages that mean zilch to an argument. CelticGreen 03:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I am just the manipulative, deceptive, evil person in this arguement and you are the "little angel" model Wikipedian. You just have it all figured out dont you? I guess that the admin you ran off and wined to didnt agree with you either, becuase he told you that you were the wrong party in all of this. It really discredits your position when you start attacking the person instead of trying to discredit the facts presented. Again, I ask you to start talking about the article and the facts I have presented instead of trying to continuously attack the opposition becuase you have no material to back your positions up. Please focus on the topic at hand, not the editors. Marinidil 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I said I was a model Wikipedian?? Where? And since I don't believe in angels, I'm certainly not one. If you believe in them you would have to be DEAD to be one. All I ever said in this was "delete per nom" and that's my whole argument. At least I didn't register a whole new name just to fight here. You're wonderful amusement, albeit seriously uninformed. I do believe editors like you are why if my daughter uses Wikipedia for a research paper she gets an automatic F on a paper. I edit soaps. I came here to agree to deleting. I reverted out of compliance edits. You're the one that went off on me. I'm no model, but I'm not the bad guy in this one Mr. Sockpuppet. CelticGreen 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone. Stop harassing me. I did not start this harassment, you did. I simply voted in this poll and you commented on my vote negatively. That is what started it, not me.And I am a sockpuppet, but a legitamate one. Do I need to reference the rules again? [9] Leave me alone and move on. I dont deserve this! Marinidil 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to cash in some rogue points and block the both of you if you can't participate civilly. east.718 at 04:04, 11/12/2007

~~Thanks East718. Now CelticGreen can we move on and debate the topic at hand and stop the personal attacks? Marinidil 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Um, excuse me, you are the one that started this. You accused Esanchez and I of having ulterior motives and deleting comments. Oh, no, they weren't "your" comments but you rushed to the anon IP's rescue like a knight in shining armour over his injustice. You did start this, you did admit to being a sockpuppet. You might want to go re-read this, including reverts. You are grossly mistaken in your involvement. I will,however, bet money that because of your behaviour the article will stay. You stomped your feet and threw your fit to the point the decision makers will be afraid to see the facts and the article will stay. Congrats, your fit worked. And what the heck are you TRYING to point to, sock? It makes no sense.CelticGreen 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note to everyone that I added the California and county governmental statistics to the article to further enhance the difference between WGG and GG. If you want to delete it, please discuss first. Thanks. Marinidil 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should I work on a map for this article? I think it needs a map showing the boundaries. I think the actual GG page needs this too to differential the area within the city. What do you guys think? Marinidil 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's left to debate? Your tirade has sealed the deal. I guarantee 100 people could come in and say delete but your behaviour alone will guarantee it stays. Truly sad. CelticGreen 04:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created by user:Ardis12, a sock of banned user user:Ericsaindon2. The same erson has contributed to this page as user:75.43.219.145, user:75.43.195.101, user:Marinidil, and user:E212122. The closing admin should discount the opinions of these accounts and take a close look at any new accounts that participate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just so I'm perfectly clear, all the drama over the weekend was caused by the author of the article who is a sockpuppet of a banned user so essentially all the problems he caused were because he has several accounts and anonymous IPs that he's editing on which as a banned user he shouldn't be doing. Correct? Thanks for clearing that up. IrishLass0128 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Field

This singer fails WP:MUSIC; only one apparently self-released album is claimed. There seem to be no substantial sources about him other than his Myspace page. PROD was contested in February. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Mr pand 13:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No non-trivial sources outside of his MySpace; and how do we know that the movie-writer is the same person? NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Muchness 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability tests. Decoratrix 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reich Star

This rule book for a role playing game fails has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines. When it gets an article in a newspaper/website, then bring it back here. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not notable. It is also filled with some speculation and is missing references. Icestorm815 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of source is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Two comments first. One, this article is about the Role Playing Game Reich Star, and not just a "rule book for a role playing game". Secondly, I remember a number of articles about this when it came out in 1991, but due to it's age, you probably aren't going to find much about it online. That is the problem with dealing with older products that may have notability, but due to their age, its hard to find the outside info today. That said, I say a weak keep, keeping the notability tag for now, in hopes that somebody still has some of the old gaming magazines and such to check. Perhaps if nothing is added in several weeks, a new AfD might be appropriate.--Donovan Ravenhull 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that the notability tag is old (September), but I'm not quite ready to trash this yet.--Donovan Ravenhull 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an element of the history of the roleplaying game genre which was 15 or so years old at the time, and a game which is covered by the RPG Encyclopedia (an interesting question... if a genre encyclopedia covers it, is it notable?) -Harmil 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in R. A. Salvatore's Forgotten Realms Series

List of non-notable fictional objects. Mikeblas 11:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list of objects has no secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability. --Gavin Collins 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ones that have articles can keep their articles, but the rest of the list is fancruft and belongs in the trash can NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all items on the list are non-notable per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Nowhere to merge this per WP:FICT, so deletion is appropriate. Masaruemoto 06:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical Romanian

The article is quite a mess, as it's not clear what it talks about, mixing several topics, including history of Christianity in Romania and etymology of some words. First of all, there is no such thing as a Liturgical Romanian language. There have been many early translations of the Bible or other religious texts, but each of them used a certain dialect (for example, Textele maramureşene used a northern dialect (with a characteristic rhotacisation of n), while Coresi's writings used the Wallachian dialect. Currently, the Bible translation is based on Standard Romanian. The article, however, talks about the etymology of the church words and even this it does wrongly and with a lot of original research, including some rather strange claims, such as that Romanian Christianity was based on the Gallic ritual. The list of Latin/Slavic words (itself original research) is also wrong, as some Latin words (such as orologiu) are 19th century borrowings. bogdan 11:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good article. 203.220.107.23 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Prose is pretty good, but there's no sources in either this or the original Romanian article, and it looks like a load of OR. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you don't source anything. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research from top to bottom. No source is cited because there are no sources to cite: this article is entirely the product of fantasy. Dahn 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge or Keep~~ I understand the Romanian writer's idea for making the article-- as a translation, it's one of those "over your head" articles that most Wikipedians aren't interested in, let alone would understand. In this case, it's about linguistics rather than chemistry or classical music. Just as there are terms in the King James Version that aren't used in modern English (begat, draught, gird, etc.), there are archaic terms not used in the Romanian language. My suggestion to the author is to build an article around this one about Biblia Sinodală or Biblia de la Bucureşti, which were the equivalent of KJV in Romanian Orthodox churches. Mandsford 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the problem, Mandsford, is that the information in this article is false, in both generic and detailed terms. Bogdangiusca pointed to the exact problems in his original comment: in short, there is no "liturgical Romanian". As a matter of fact, we already have an article on Biblia de la Bucureşti. Dahn 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after salvage. You've persuaded me. As long as there's an article about the 1688 Bible, any truthful information can be added to it. I can't believe that everything in ro:Româna liturgică, from the Romanian Wikipedia, is false. From what I understand, the Romanian language has Romance and Slavic roots, and there are some words that aren't used 320 years later. Mandsford 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main differences between the Bible of 1688 and other Romanian versions are in reference to inaccuracies in translation - or, at least, so said Gala Galaction, who was the next person to translate the Bible. The language of that text is indeed antiquated, in both its usage of both Latin and Slavic words, but: it is not unintelligible (an has been partly revived in lay poetry of the 20th century), the studies on the exact differences between the two sets of Romanian seem to be scarce and centered on details, and nothing of what this article is about is backed by scholarly works. Furthermore, the Bible of 1688 was published in Wallachia for the use of the local Orthodox church, whereas the article implies that the language in Transylvania is proof of direct Latin influence - when, in fact, the words cited may just as well be the result of Counterreformation; i.e.: the language used may have been influenced by the Catholic clergy, and present only with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic populace. Of the words mentioned in the article, only a few may actually appear in the original Orthodox Bible (and services). Mixing criteria in this manner is anti-scientific. Dahn 08:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Only google results except wikipedia&mirrors are 2 forums in english, and one blog in romanian. Anonimu 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is entirely OR, but it could have a mention in Romanian. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a notable topic, but unfortunately the conclusions drawn in the article are unverifiable by wikipedia. No independent traces of the term in google. Although the history of entrance of Romanian language into liturgy has been discussed in academia. `'Míkka 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good topic but the article is OR. Lisa the Sociopath 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Concordium

This in universe plot summary has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional confederation is derived --Gavin Collins 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good article. 203.220.107.23 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no possible sourcing, topic of extremely minor importance, and issues with the article in its current state. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an appropriately limited amount of this material to Star Fleet Universe and redirect. Pinball22 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wooty NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wooty's analysis of the subject. Doctorfluffy 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; but transwiki to Memory Alpha first. Masaruemoto 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as per Pinball. Edward321 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pinball22. Some of this information would be useful in the main article, however I do not see the need for a separate article for every minor faction in the game. Iarann 10:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Voting rights in Puerto Rico, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico

I originally proposed a merge into the main Puerto Rico article, however it has been over a month and no concensus has been reached after a long discussion, in a short time period this discussion became a exchange of political points of view and its integrity has been compromised by some acts of sockpuppetry. Now the article itself appears to have a extremely reduced scope based on someone's point of view concerning the island's relation with the United States and I personally think that this is just going to become a POV fork just as a fellow admin expressed before, giving undue weight to a problem that not only affects Puerto Rico but also several other territories or providences of the U.S., but its better that the fate of this article is be decided by neutral members of the community that don't have a POV concerning the country's politics - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid topic, since Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but they can't vote in national elections. Until there was a constitutional amendment (in the 1960s, no less), U.S. citizens residing in the District of Columbia couldn't vote in national elections either. The title needs to be changed "U.S. Government Disenfranchisement of U.S. Citizens" sounds like some conspiracy to keep people from voting in any election; the lack of a right to vote in a national election, as with the lack of a Congressman or Senator, is one of the costs that go along with the benefits of not living in one of the 50 states. Mandsford 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a valid and important topic. The title, however, is unnecessarily POV -- the USG isn't actively taking away voting rights, they were never granted as Puerto Rico has never sought statehood and chose its own commonwealth (federative) status via plebiscite. Presidential voting rights in Puerto Rico or even just Voting rights in Puerto Rico would seem to be a more neutral way to title the article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mandsford and Dhartung. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Puerto Rico without prejudice for re-creation in the future (provided that it is given an NPOV title) -- The topic is clearly notable, but the article needs to essentially be rewritten right now to de-POV it and to remove the extended quotations of legal opinions. (It's supposed to be an article, not an amicus curiae brief.) Since the article needs to be re-written, we might as well put all of this information in the Puerto Rico article. If, however, it later becomes too long for that article, it can be moved to a separate article with an NPOV title. --Hnsampat 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The title is a problem, so rename it. Content needs some POV cleanup, but is certainly worth keeping. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- rotten name that should be permanently trashed. Let it be rewritten and de-POVed if someone wants to, either in Puerto Rico or in a new article, or someone can always completely start over, but delete this. Noroton 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Mandsford and Dhartung make good points. - Superlex 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Puerto Rico While the issue deserves to be covered, the current article (including the name), has some serious NPOV issues. From looking at the article, I can see no reason why this issue couldn't be covered fully as a small section within the main Puerto Rico page for the time being. If it eventually outgrows that, then there is no reason it couldn't branch off into a separate page again, but at the moment I just don't see the need for an independent article. I understand that there have been some issues with the merge attempt in the past, but I personally believe that it is by far the best solution.Ricree101 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Puerto Rico or Rename I agree with Ricree101 on this issue. Article should be incorporated as appropriate into Puerto Rico. Only if it outgrows a section there, and there is enough properly cited NPV material, then create an new article with an NPV name and link from main Puerto Rico article. As an outsider it seems like the obvious solution. --lk 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Neil ☎ 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Zero Inc.

This article is about a Canadian broadcasting company, which I think is not notable according to WP:CORP. The article has previously been tagged for missing references and for not establishing notability, but both templates were removed by an IP without comment, so bringing it here. A google news search shows some hits, but it looks like rather trivial mentions - the best I found is this press release, but I'm not sure that can be seen as an independent reliable source. Minimaki 10:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good article. 203.220.107.23 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and apparent scarcity of reliable sources. Note that the above comment is incorrect, this is not a good article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. The company website is little more than flash-fluff. Bombycil 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is a notable article. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. It gives info on the company which is notable, just like CTVglobemedia is. So what if their website is "fluff", that is no reason. MusiMax 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time right now to investigate further, but this company owns 5 cable channels that also have articles; if some of them are notable, then the company probably is by extension. On the other hand, maybe this just means there needs to be 5 more articles deleted:

In any event, neither this article nor the five above cite any references that establish notability per the Notability Guidelines' requirements. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further checking, I found a brief Canadian Broadcasting Corporation mention which I added to the article, but it does not cover Channel Zero sufficiently to satisfy the notability guideline. I searched Google News Archive for Movieola and found sufficient coverage to establish its' notability. I did not find anything else for Silver Screen or Channel Zero -- maybe someone else can look. I suspect both may be notable, but I sure can't find anything to prove it which is what this AfD requires. I did not have time to look at the three adult channels' notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Enough references have been added to the article to support its notability and links to Channel Zero's properties have been added to support the fact that it owns notable properties. MusiMax 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are four references given right now:

[10] rather trivial mention, one of the channels listed is run by them
[11] not sure how independent channelcanada.com is, and how notable a channel application is
[12] apparently a press release and not independent
[13] rather trivial mention

So I'm not really convinced they prove notability. --Minimaki 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Physical Response

Non-notable therapy method, lacking reliable sources, and lacking non-promotional Google hits. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I've stated. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems there are sources to be found using Google Scholar[14]., In fact, there seem to be 1580 items, many in peer -reviewed journals, from a number of authors, some widely cited, some devoted entirely to the subject, showing a very wide acceptance. I've added a few, and reduced the article a little. Another instance of apparent COI causing the writing of a low quality self-indulgent article, when a better one would have been possible. DGG (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD sure is quiet. I am willing to withdraw the nomination since DGG seems to have been smarter than me at finding sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's real and well cited. Earthdirt 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hawkins

This children's book series fails WP:BK. No independent sources about the book have been given, none added since February, and Google returns mainly book seller sites. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have been a series with a fair amount of notability in the UK at least. I found a School Library Journal review on LexisNexis as well. Note that there is also a prolific cross-stich author by the name Sam Hawkins, and if kept this might need to become a disambig. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Sam Hawkins, Pirate Detective, the actual name of the series. I've found some external references and added them to the article. As a book series published by a major publisher (Macmillan), I believe it meets our notability guidelines. NawlinWiki 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Karate System

Primary sources only, no assertation of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sounds like it could be notable, but makes no assertions of how many schools, notable practitioners, etc... If secondary sources supporting assertions of notability are added, I would change my vote to keep. Bradford44 12:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above; I think I may recognize the name, but i certainly don't see sources. JJL 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This listing received a number of pro-deletion and pro-merge comments in the first six hours or so after nomination, but the article was considerably expanded thereafter--not least by the original nominator, who tried to withdraw the deletion nomination (the afd template was absent for about 20 hours but this has not affected the debate).

As well as this, one other delete commentator came back and changed his mind, and another said "keep if cleaned up."

The article has had just two new comments since the expansion, both in favor of keeping the improved version. The article appears to be well referenced. Any further problems that may exist can be resolved by merging or editing. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: non-admin closure. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Seltzer Rocket

~~Guess what? If you fill a film cannister with fizzy liquid and shake it about a bit, the lid flies off! Something that was made up one day. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Delete As nom.Alberon 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Not a speedy candidate, but violates WP:NOT#HOWTO and fails the notability criteria (lack of sources). --B. Wolterding 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up somewhat, not only a howto anymore. However, merge to water rocket as proposed on the page. I don't see the necessity of a stand-alone article for each type of homemade "rocket" that uses a different type of fuel. --B. Wolterding 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge with water rocket then change to homemade rockets is ok. However, I think Hot water rocket is a more likely candidate for a merge.--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see a link to hot water rocket, since the water is not hot. Alka Seltzer does not heat up creating steam. 132.205.99.122 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that this has the feel of an article which should be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure either of these is the right place. They seem to have somewhat different principles - as far as I can see the Water rocket uses a sustained jet of water over a period of time, whereas this relies mainly on a more or less instantaneous release of gas and the lid of the cannister. Lenticel's suggestion below of renaming and expanding may be better. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability criteria as well as being completely OR, better delete this before somebody loses a eye trying to pull this stunt. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. —dust mite 13:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is not currently very well written and the topic is not nearly as notable as the Saturn rocket, this is certainly not original research made up one day by a Wikipedia user. It is a common science demonstration mentioned in multiple books[15] and at least one respectable science education journal.[16] --Itub 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in current form, as per Wolterding but keep if cleaned up. --Moglex 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do a rewrite shortly when I have a few more minutes. In the meantime I withdraw this - looks like I was a little hasty. I stand corrected - thanks Itub. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As there are others supporting deletion, it's too late to withdraw the nomination and the discussion needs to run its course. WP:SK only applies if the nom withdraws and no-one else has supported a delete. Thomjakobsen 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right, but I'd like to ask the delete voters to compare the re-written version of the article with the one that was nominated for deletion ([17]) and reconsider. --Itub 09:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand but rename as sodium bicarbonate rocket or better. Alka-Seltzer rockets work due to the citric acid and soda chemical reaction. There are other chemical demonstrations that use soda and vinegar rather than the drug[18]. Be warned, most of the sources are children's books--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not to use trite arguments, but these are fun to make. shoy (^words _words) 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appears to be much improved and I cannot find a rationale for deletion. No more bongos 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padstow Heights Public School

Appears to be a very ordinary school, notability not meaningfully asserted, no third party sources other than link to a Govt site. Stub since Oct 2005 Ohconfucius 09:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another school - no press or anything seemingly remarkable about it. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find primary schools are generally not notable... usually have no sports or academic teams, no exceptional clubs, etc. As it is, this school seems indistinguishable from any other. —dust mite 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general rule of thumb for primary/elementary schools is that they are non-notable. This school does not stand out from the rest in any way. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schoolcruft. Twenty Years 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moruya Public School

Appears to be a very ordinary school, notability not meaningfully asserted, no third party sources other than a Govt report. Ohconfucius 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't this be for Moruya Public School? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, thx. there seems to be a bit of a mess. now tidied. Ohconfucius 09:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable primary school that fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Twenty Years 13:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find primary schools are generally not notable... usually have no sports or academic teams, no exceptional clubs, etc. As it is, this school seems indistinguishable from any other. —dust mite 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school doesn't appear to stand out from others. Non-notable. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted. There is nothing here that wouldn't be readily recreated by any writer who had information at hand to readily assert notability.Ga rr ie 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN school. TJ Spyke 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narwee Public School

Appears to be a very ordinary nursery/primary school, notability not meaningfully asserted, no third party sources. Ohconfucius 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to assert any notability. It fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. There are no reliable, third-party sources. Twenty Years 13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find primary schools are generally not notable... usually have no sports or academic teams, no exceptional clubs, etc. As it is, this school seems indistinguishable from any other. —dust mite 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 20years above.Ga rr ie 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN school. TJ Spyke 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Most users participating were made aware of WP:PRODUCT and made their keep or delete vote upon the information provided. The general consensus was to keep the article as per needing "wikifying". Consequently, the result was keep. - Rudget _{Contributions} 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1600

AfDs for this article:

Prod removed with the comment "It has been discussed". It was; the article had no consensus after an AfD which closed in August of 2006. After more than a year, the article is substantively unchanged: diff. It's just a catalog entry, consisting of only a list of features and a picture. The article admits that it's mostly the same as another model. -- Mikeblas 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; just a feature list without any proof of notability. But the removal of the PROD tag was in order - once the article has been on AfD, it can no longer be deleted via the PROD process, regardless of the AFD outcome. --B. Wolterding 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify; it just needs to be made into an enyclopedia entry to match Wikipedia's tone Martin B 11:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Namely, using which content from which independent sources? --B. Wolterding 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "just" needed that treatment for more than fourteen months. That is, since its creation. I think this article has had ample chance to make something of itself. -- Mikeblas 11:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distinct products of major notable companies are notable in their own right. THE KING 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary: Per WP:PRODUCT, they should generally be covered in the article about the company, or in an article about all products of the company - not in a separate article. --B. Wolterding 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I am aware of WP:PRODUCT, I would have to say that the article is notable in a least a small way, which should at least be a salvage. Rudget _{Contributions} 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above concerns, if the article is wikified. NHRHS2010 talk 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for zero assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited from a parent company, but no prejudice against merging related models into a single article. Someguy1221 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Prodego ^talk 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marmion Primary School

AfDs for this article:

Previously put up for deletion per WP:COPY, but nobody has bothered putting any work into it. Appears to be a very ordinary school, notability not meaningfully asserted, no third party sources other than a Govt report. Ohconfucius 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indeed notable, this is part of a project on improving the northern suburbs of Perth. Media and other significant source coverage does in fact exist (it was quite controversial when built due to its odd and inaccessible location at that time) - however due to its age it is hard to source and needs to be done at the Battye State Reference Library in Perth. As the last person to contribute to it I'm a bit surprised that I was not contacted, and also that the nominator has failed to recognise my effective rewrite of it incorporates as a source a section in a published local history book as a source, and does not in any way, shape or form violate WP:COPY, although is a bit stubbish. General consensus, however, runs against deleting articles on Wikipedia solely for their length. Orderinchaos 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per above and the fact that there is some encyclopedic content here, namely the lack of electricity and so forth. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per OIC. One of the most notable PS in the country. The first nomination should have been a good indication as to how this would pan out. Twenty Years 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really know about Perth, but worldwide I don't know how notable it was for a school of under 100 students to not have car access and electricity connected in the 1950's. For sources to pass WP:RS they have to be realistically accessible and that tends to exclude local history society self-published books - but if you come up with two independed references substantially about this school then I'll go Keep instead.Ga rr ie 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrie. TJ Spyke 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Who am I to argue; If OIC thinks a school is notable, I think I must agree. The article makes credible claims of notability, but would benefit greatly from expansion, which I hope this AfD will spur. I hope OIC and others in Australia have access to sources that aren't available in North America to use to expand the article. Alansohn 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to do so after I come back from wikibreak... it's a case of being in the library with time to look it up. Re Garrie's comment, once I have found the sources, they're all viewable in Western Australia and in any interstate libraries which keep WA stuff - I'm aware for instance that both the NLA and SLNSW keep archives of the West Australian newspaper. Orderinchaos 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the school is notable for its unusal location and the controversy surrounding its creation. TerriersFan 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now added some awards and refs for those who twitch about such things :-) TerriersFan 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, we're half way to an article for one of the teachers and they were pretty much first losers for the reconciliation award (yeah, I'm harsh on coming anywhere less than first). Then there is a primary source. So there is one real reference: a local history society self published book. OIC, please find some references substantially about the school rather than being substantially about a reconciliation award, or one of the teachers from this school.Garrie 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of the subject's notability doesn't relate to the teaching staff or even to the *present* school (which is fairly non notable and had it not had rather unusual and somewhat controversial beginnings, and featured so vitally in planning policy of the 1960s and beyond, it would be a clear delete). Note that according to WP:N, notability is not temporary, so its former situation counts towards it. A cursory read of my user talk page at the present would reveal I'm in no situation to improve the article any time before early December for reasons entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The schools history and awards combined, as the article now suggests with multiple sources, makes it notable. I do not see deletion as necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral* The 'awards' don't seem particularly notable (an 'encouragement' award? Is that a good thing or bad?) and the 'controversy' does not seem particularly notable either. It's certainly not obviously notable. That said, this article at least TRIES to assert some notability, and cites a couple of sources, while still engaging in some OR. Better than most of the school articles out there, I'm sad to say. Epthorn 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that it might be worthwhile mentioning that the 'encouragement award' was not an award to encourage the school; rather an award for encouraging racial harmony. TerriersFan 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Pleased to see Terriers Fan is adding to the article and showing it does have some claims to natability. Well done Victuallers 13:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult-watching group

Duplicate content of Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements#Cult-watching_groups - this is small enough to fit in the section there > Merge and delete. Sfacets 09:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. —dust mite 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all cult-watching groups are opposed to cults and nrms. --Simon D M 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article appears to be duplicate material.TheRingess (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article written from memory that was not well-conceived. It's been improvemed but there's no reason to have an article at this name. . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerville Ecovillage

The original version of this page was a copyvio. After removing that text, there's not much left. What's there reads like an advert. With the notability issues as well, I'd say delete. delldot talk 09:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was intending on nominating this for deletion myself on its (lack of) notability, but hadn't got round to it. My curiosity a few weeks back made me take a drive out there, and I can report that the site is a vacant paddock, and despite the impression given in the article, it is a planned community only. The editor has done well to find several mentions of it in the media, but this does not hide that fact that the so-called village is at this time just not there. I agree with the nominator that the article reads like (and lets be honest, is) an advert. —Moondyne 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moondyne. In addition, any article that repeatedly includes the ™ symbol after its subject's name is automatically suspect. Deor 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this reduced article should be incorporated into the Chidlow article. The subject this article and the deleted article silver tree school in parkerville are part of the same social set - they have appear to have no idea that this is an online encylopedia and not an advertising service Satu Suro 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep - Agree that this article is no good as it stands. The problem, though, is that there is quite an obstacle to claiming that it fails WP:N, as it is relatively well sourced. Maybe WP:CRYSTAL would be a more appropriate policy to invoke, then again, maybe not. No more bongos 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) In retrospect I can't see a valid deletion rationale at all, above comments appear to be part-based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No more bongos 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no identifiable reason to delete. Bearian 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Central-American Crisis (magazine article)

Blatant WP:OR violation. Hemlock Martinis 08:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As nom.Alberon 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator requests keep. First of all, thankyou User:Hemlock Martinis for alerting me to this debate. I was surprised to hear that the article is being considered for deletion on “original research” grounds because I didn’t feel I had done anything more than report on information from widely available sources. Perhaps my use of the phrase “as far as the present writer is aware” is causing the concern, but if so I think the issue is more stylistic than substantive. Maybe it will be useful if I add that the source which I cited in the article on the early usage of “neocolonialism” reads as follows:

The first recorded use of the term was in reference to French policy in Algeria in 1959 (although the word had been used earlier in the context of art history), and in 1961 the term became more widely used: in relation to Indonesia and Malaysia, the Pacific, and US policy in the Carribbean and Latin America; the word was used in the New Statesman in January 1961 and in the New Left Review by Perry Anderson and Stuart Hall in July 1961. . . .

Please tell me more precisely where in the article you consider the problem to be and I will try to address your concerns. La la ooh 20:37, 09 November 2007

Delete: We don't do reviews of magazine articles (unless they're of proven notability, I suppose). Some of this information might best go into some article on neo-colonialism. Or references should be provided showing that multiple, independent sources have substantial coverage of this article.Noroton 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do reviews of magazine articles. See Category:Magazine articles for a list (which may not be exhaustive). I looked at ten of them, not knowing beforehand what any of them were about. Five did not cite any references indicating that they were notable. One, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved", cited two sources which contradicted each other on the article's notability (one said it was the first instance of Gonzo journalism; the other said different article was). The other four gave references which established notability.

I might mention that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy. The fact that editors have not seen fit to delete most of the articles I mention above indicates that a de facto consensus exists that multiple references to sources establishing notability are not required. I have one source directly indicating notability. I can cite others that will tend to support it, although they are not direct. -- La la ooh 1:52, 12 November 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 Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally closed by Kicking222 but the closure was all screwed up so had to reclose. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Aldana

Cannot satisfy WP:BIO. Sourced and may pass notability but not that much. Only a local personality who achieved awards. Cannot stand to have it's own page and some section contains "personal information" which is not encyclopedic. BritandBeyonce 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first thought was delete, but she may have sufficient notability in her home country to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her achievements are not enough to suffice notability. BritandBeyonce 09:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2. Everything mentioned here is there already. --Howard the Duck 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2; per HtD's comment. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 10:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Howard. Transwiki to WikiPilipinas if possible.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless, after PBB Celeb. Edition Season 2, she becomes more notable than the other housemates herself. --- 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making an entrance

Contested Prod. This reads like an Original Research essay to explain a theatrical term which is possibly best left to Wiktionary as per WP:DICT. There are no sources to support the essay. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phrases don't really belong in a dictionary and this is a legitimate concept for an encyclopedia. Yes it needs some work and the references are poor, but it just needs some love and attention. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research about a fairly NN movie cliché. --Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say it was a NN movie cliché - it's a very important part of most films and theatrical productions and the examples listed are well known and influential. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources can, and need to, be added, but it's an essential part of theater-- acting, writing, directing are all built around entrances, exits, and standing in a certain place ("finding your mark"). It is a cliche' outside of theater, where "being dramatic" or "theatrics" can be inappropriate behavior. It's not seen as often in film, where, unlike a stage play, the scene can be changed in 1/24 of a second. Mandsford 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Violetriga. THE KING 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + TLC per violetriga– Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CalWIN

Reconsideration Effort to Delete Article

Significant inaccuracies continue to be posted in the article based on allegations in a pending litigation matter with the State of California, inappropriately including litigation claims and treating them as facts by claimants/attorneys to the lawsuit.

The CalWIN system has been in production for all 18 California Counties since mid-2006 and currently supports approximately 30,000 users throughout the State, successfully supporting 42% of California's neediest families.

Wikipedia is not meant as a forum for posting baseless allegations to benefit litigation and should not contain anything that is not fact. Posting allegations from a legal filing as "Fact" before the matter has been heard in a court of law provides bias and disregards fact.

This article should be used to post factual information from unbiased sources and not falsities from those with an agenda. Unfortunately this has not been the case and the information changes in the article are based less on fact and more on political positioning f 67.161.163.221 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inaccurate, biased, agenda driven updates to support those involved in litigation. There is no place in Wikipedia where this is appropriate and deleting the article will provide the only safe mechanism to remove the political and legal exploitation. 67.161.163.221 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when a bunch of POV-pushers (not saying the nominator is not one of said pov-pushers) aren't playing around with it, hopefully with some reliable sources. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that the computer system used by a welfare agency, no matter how large, is necessarily separately notable. If the litigation becomes notable we could have an article about that, but it would need secondary sources. As is this is pretty much a WP:COATRACK situation. Regardless, much of the nomination above does not speak to acceptable deletion rationales. --Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to NPOV. The difficulties with this major system are fairly well known, and there should be other references. DGG (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The nomination establishes the notability of the subject. There's no evidence that the article can't adhere to WP:NPOV. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator doesn't really forward an argument for deletion here - instead, the argument seems to be one for firm editing of the article and a reminder to the folks trying to POV-push from either side of the joys of neutrality as well as proper use of a talk page Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Dhartung's analysis. Doctorfluffy 08:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in performing research, I found this entry quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.56.109 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydran Kingdom

No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game guide from which these ficitonal creatures are derived, and the article itself is written from an in universe perspective with no real world context. Gavin Collins 07:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 07:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Sub-article per WP:FICT. Material should be considered as a whole. Colonel Warden 08:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be considered as a whole. Somebody could argue for the deletion of an article because it is part of material that is generally getting deleted; would that be fair? Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's beside the point which is that this is part of a matched set of articles which are intended to complement each other. They have been presented as separate articles for reasons of space and style. Applying arbitrary AFDs to parts of this whole is a clumsy and inefficient way to proceed. If some parts are too verbose then they should be merged as a comprehensive rewrite rather than being deleted piecemeal. Note that the policies of WP:FICT are still being hashed out and it is rather unfair to subject old articles to new stringent tests which they were not written around. There's lots of useful material in such articles and deletion just throws out the baby with the bathwater. Colonel Warden 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an appropriately limited amount to Star Fleet Universe and redirect. Eventually I'd really like to see these all in one article called something like Powers of the Star Fleet Universe. Pinball22 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I would create such a page, but if this is an indication, it will just get nuked too.--Donovan Ravenhull 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no footnotes, so this article not got primary sources that are verifiable. If this material were added to say a Good Article, it would imediately loose its good status. Merging would cause more damage than a deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It not got primary sources that are verifiable? Look at the references section.
It has verifiable primary sources which are listed in the article, what it lacks is secondary sources, which as you've been told repeatedly are a cause for article improvement, not deletion. It is guilty of "in universe" writing, but again that's not a reason for deletion. Kmusser 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Without proper footnotes to support citations, it is not known what the precise source of this plot summary is. In fact, it is not possible to verify whether the references given have actually been used in the body of the article. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All are reasons to merge and improve the article. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [19] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [20] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. I noticed you did not make this comment on any of the other pages you are proposing for deletion, which do have footnotes cited in text by primary sources. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [21] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. I will reiterate the points I have made here on the other 4 or 5 pages you marked for deletion in this subject, as the articles are linked and if the solution is a merge or keep, the other articles would be either strongly affected and vice verse. Iarann 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response This article has a fundamental problem which you have failed to address and that is that is clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no real-world content in this article and as such this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. There are many alternative fan sites and fan wikis where this material would be welcomed with open arms. As regards your attempt to discredit me personally, it just does not bother me. I know that I am contributing to WP by pointing out to you the issues which should be addressed: there are guidelines for WP articles, and this one contravenes those guidelines. --Gavin Collins 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I understand it fails the plot summary check, that is why I suggest a merger of the various articles into a useful, streamlined one. To quote a line from the very policy you are referencing "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." So this doesn't explain why you oppose merging the article and would prefer to delete it. I'm not concerned with discrediting you, I am providing context for what is going on here. I agree that these articles do not need to be separate, in their present state at least they violate this policies. But as others have suggested before, cleaning up Wikipedia does not mean mass deletion of articles. There is useful information in this article that could be streamlined and included in another, more over arching article. To quote myself, "To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game." Why not suggest merge instead of deletion for these articles? Please see Alternatives for Deletion from the Deletion Policy article. You can even look to the reason previous articles in the same position that you have nominated have not been deleted, see the section when dealing with sub-articles in WP:FICT which talks about how sub articles should be treated as different sections of the parent article as long as they are clearly identified, which this one is. To quote from the policy: "In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content." This one does not properly provide real-world content, so it must be cleaned up or fixed, but if you notice the word strive in there, you can see that this is intended as room for improvement. Deleting every article that needs work will lead to lots of wasted time and a much weaker Wikipedia. This isn't about picking a fight or attacking you, this is about protecting information that could be lost instead of corrected. If I were attacking you, I wouldn't quote numerous policy guidelines. Iarann 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having proper footnotes isn't a reason for deletion. I don't think any one is debating that the article needs help. Kmusser 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reason for deletion. In fact, it is the reason. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over at WP:DEL#REASON again and still didn't see "no footnotes" listed. Kmusser 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Per Pinball22 and Kmusser. Kmusser's comments are particularly helpful, as some people here do seem to think that lack of secondary sources is a reason for deletion rather than improvement. Rray 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people? It's straight up Wikipedia policy, and only broken for the likes of Harry Potter. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Pinball22 and Kmusser. Edward321 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMPlayer

nn software. Article was created in September and it has been marked as a stub ever since. No sources and it's unlikely any reliable secondary sources will be found. ^Law/_Disorder 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if reliable secondary sources are found, then it can be recreated. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Alberon 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xevious: Fardraut Densetsu

nn software. A stub since March07. ^Law/_Disorder 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ^Law/_Disorder 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be a general consensus that video games released by a notable publisher are themselves notable. I find it very strange that Xevious is not mentioned in the article Compile (software company), as sources do suggest they are the publisher. --Hyperbole 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you cite that policy please? or, cite where a consensus was reached that video game articles can ignore WP:N and WP:V? ^Law/_Disorder 07:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:V really isn't at issue: it's trivial to verify that this game exists and was published and released. As for WP:N, take note of List of Nintendo Entertainment System games: even absolutely obscure games such as Exodus (video game) are considered notable enough for an article by virtue of having been released by a notable publisher for a notable system. --Hyperbole 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable game, notable series, notable publisher. It's a Japanese-only release, but that has never been and never should be reason to delete anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability isn't inherited and isn't inherent. ^Law/_Disorder 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in Tales of Symphonia. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect if anything further needs to be merged, although most of the pertinent info is already there. Neil ☎ 11:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presea Combatir

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a summary of the character's in-universe personality and role with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Presea Combatir' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Examining Presea Combatir without looking at Colette Brunel, Lloyd Irving, Genis Sage, Raine Sage, Kratos Aurion, Zelos Wilder, Sheena Fujibayashi, Regal Bryant, and List of characters in Tales of Symphonia doesn't make any sense. This really isn't a good issue for AfD: probably, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games should be alerted to the verifiability problems with these articles and should make a decision as to which ones to keep, which ones to delete, and which ones to abridge. --Hyperbole 07:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every article should be notable in its own right. If examining these characters as one large group is the only fair indicator of their notability then I doubt they are notable enough individually to have their own articles. Best case, you are looking at a combined list, but I don't know how much verifiable, non-plot summary information is in any of these articles. Do reliable secondary sources exist for anybody from this series? Currently, as far as I can tell, they all fail WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Tales of Symphonia#Presea Combatir. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral, Leaning Keep~~. From my knowledge of the source material, her role in it is pretty minor. As for the WP:NOT#PLOT issue the article doesn't seem to have too much of a plot summary. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The article is almost entirely plot summary, even if the section headers aren't named as such. The History and Other sections are clearly a reiteration of events, and the Personality section is just an in-universe description of her personality based on events in the plot. There is nothing at all in the entire page that shows real-world context or importance. I suppose some of it could be OR, not plot summary, if the material isn't mentioned directly in-game, but then obviously it's failing a different policy. Doctorfluffy 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reanalysis of the article, I am going with delete/merge, as there seemed to be no real-world context. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT to List of characters in Tales of Symphonia. I agree with Hyperbole, though, that examining only one article of the suite doesn't make much sense. —Quasirandom 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to Hyberbole's point above. Doctorfluffy 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to/into List of characters in Tales of Symphonia#Presea Combatir. Pagra shtak 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood Gardens, Oakland, California

Just a bunch of WP:OR with no references Chris! _ct 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup the project has been in the news,[22] I'm sure more sources are out there. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this housing project. The article provided above does not add to notability; it just shows that this development was tangentially connected to a rather minor news story in a local paper. —dust mite 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and cleanup --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is not a vote. It is better to provide a reason. :) Chris! _ct 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Needs multiple sources to meet WP:N. Provide them and get back to me and if they're valid, I'll change my vote. Noroton 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twomps (Murder Dubbs), Oakland California

Look like WP:OR, the entire article is lack of references Chris! _ct 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename (Making "Twomps" a redirect to "Murder Dubbs" or vice versa) or Merge to East Oakland, California. There are reliable sources that this very violent neighborhood is known by these names, e.g., the San Francisco Bay Guardian. --Hyperbole 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly it is better sourced than the East Oakland, California article, which only has two references for the whole article, before I added one for Twomps. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain why we should keep this. The East Oakland, Oakland, California article being unreferenced is irrelevant. Chris!

_ct 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Its not irrelevant, you just don't see the relevancy. You want to delete this article because it is underreferenced, and merge it into an article with even fewer references, its an example or irony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you really think that the article East Oakland is unreferenced, you can improve that article. I see no reason for us to discuss this here. Chris! _ct 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I question the propriety of creating an AfD 41 minutes after an article has been created, and while we seem to have another violation by a nominator of Wikipedia:deletion policy, the article at the point the AfD was created had no references. The article as it stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish an appropriate definition for the area and to establish notability. Alansohn 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. I nominated articles for deletion by judging its notability or its encyclopedic-ness, not the length of time between creation and nomination. Please stop suggesting that I have some kind of agenda to delete every articles I see and focus on the reasoning behind each deletion. As other has pointed out before, I don't need to be put on trial for nominating articles for deletion. Please also noted that the articles when I nominated is not reliable referenced. The article is reliable sourced after some improvements is done. Chris! _ct 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do need to observe Wikipedia:deletion policy, yet have provided no evidence that you have performed the required due diligence to research, edit and improve articles *before* the forced march to AfD. As stated above, I agree that there were no references in the article. Again, lack of references is a great reason to use a tag like "refimprove", but is an extremely poor excuse for deletion. Now that the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources, it's time to dip into that deep well of good faith and acknowledge that notability has been satisfied. Alansohn 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already acknowledge that notability of this article is now satisfied in my last comment. I see no reason for me to repeat. As for the deletion policy, note that the policy is just reminding editors that there are alternatives to cleanup other than deletion, but it never disallows deletion as the way to cleanup Wikipedia. Chris! _ct 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G10 - article was written to disparage Air New Zealand. Pedro : Chat 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air New Zealand Flight 213

Seems to be a WP:HOAX. Cannot find a single report or article regarding this flight. Considering it apparently only occurred a few days ago and there were no fatalities from the actual crash, this would have been all over the news. Easiest give-away is the tail number (New Zealand flights are prefixed with either ZK, ZL, or ZM). KY is not a registration prefix for any country. A^RendedWinter 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recent Google News articles on Air New Zealand make no mention of this crash, which leads me to concur with your conclusion that this is a hoax. I actually wonder if this should be subject to a Speedy delete per CSD G10: while it doesn't exactly look like a traditional "attack page," having this kind of stuff on Wikipedia could cause real harm to a company like Air New Zealand. --Hyperbole 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as malicious hoax and consider block of the editor who created this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No entry in the aviation-safety.net database. Moreover, Hawke's Bay is not served by Airbus A320 aircraft, but turboprops [23]. Indeed, the A320 is used on international services, not short domestic hops within New Zealand [24]. Concur with Metropolitan90's call to sanction the creator, we have enough trouble to deal with here without people placing deliberate fake articles in the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hoax per nom, Hyperbole and Sjakkalle's observations. Also, watch the creator's contribs--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm calling WP:BULLSHIT on this. Air New Zealand's online timetable shows that the 216-mile route between Napier and Auckland is served by DeHavilland Dash-8s, as a run that short should be. The last flight of the day from Napier takes off at 7:40pm and is scheduled to land 55 minutes later. What would it be doing crashing at 9:13pm? All the flight numbers for that route are four digits, and start with 8. A Flight 213 would not be consistent. And per the above. Delete with fire, permablock the creator. Dethme0w 08:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malicious hoax. Aircraft registered in New Zealand have the tail numbers ZK-@@@. According to www.airfleets.net, no country uses the KY- prefix (per nom). → AA ^(talk) — 09:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dethme0w. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly a stupid hoax.Alberon 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G10 per Hyperbole and block user. JuJube 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with blocking user on this libelous hoax. Ironically, Air New Zealand did have some big news on November 4, which was the inauguration of its nonstop flights from Vancouver to Auckland. “Now that Canadian visitors can fly direct rather than via the United States, New Zealand will be an even more attractive destination," says one person, which is every bit as interesting as the exciting "eyewitness" statement "The place where I'm standing now is scattered with debris." Please, no article about Air New Zealand's Vancouver to Auckland service. Mandsford 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The school itself has been written about in a few newspapers which would satisfy the main notability criterion. --Polaron | Talk 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Round Rock High School

Just a high school with no evidence of notability. Lots of unsourced hype, no progress toward verifiability even. Dicklyon 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --It seems no less notable than the other high schools in Round Rock ISD (especially Unnamed High School 5!). Unless your goal is to nuke all of them (and I hope it isn't), this one should stay. --Ye Olde Luke 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question. Unnamed #5 doesn't have an article. So your argument is that the RRHS article should stay, because some other article does not exist? -- Mikeblas 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm of the opinion that high schools are generally notable, except perhaps very new ones. This one appears to have opened in 1867, was a segregated school that was integrated in 1966, and, in 1999, was the largest high school in Central Texas with 3,600 students.[25]. I'm pretty confident that a little digging would reveal some notable alumni, as well. --Hyperbole 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not establish its notability.-- Mikeblas 11:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Satisfies my personal criteria for H.S. notability. — RJH (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to know, but you are supposed to use actual guidelines and policies. TJ Spyke 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. By my rough count - 39 high schools have been nominated since August. 36 have been Keep/No Consensus. One had serious POV issues and was merged to the school district page. One was essentially unsalvageable and was redirected to the city. The entire article for the third consisted of "East High School is the school where the films High School Musical and High School Musical 2 were shot" and was redirected to the school district. A lot of people get mad when WP:OUTCOMES is brought up...but...it seems to be true...I'm working on more in depth fact finding here. Smashville 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I bet each of those three exceptions could have been kept if more people had gotten involved with the discussions and looked for sources. Zagalejo^^^ 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and kudos on your efforts to add some of the ample additional material out there. These success rates are for articles deemed the most unnotable, and we're still well into the 90s for retention, many times higher than the rate for all other AfDs. And East High School was a fictional school. Alansohn 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, nothing to say what makes this school notable are any way different than the thousands and thousands of other high schools in existance. TJ Spyke 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article makes claims of notability for the school's accomplishments and alumni, with many more sources available above and beyond the sources already provided. Based on these reliable and verifiable sources, notability is established. I will be willing to revisit my vote if additional material is added to the article. Alansohn 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of newspaper coverage. A very small sample:

Steven Kraytak and Melissa Ludwig. "Cheerleader claims bias in tryouts - In lawsuit, she says Round Rock mandate of minority representation among judges is unconstitutional". Austin American Statesman. 19 August 2005.
Bob Banta. "Crowded campuses in Round Rock - Trustees to consider bond election; Students, teachers say ever-growing enrollments are straining high schools" Austin American Statesman. 11 November 2004.
Polly Ross Hughes. "Cardinal rule -- School's ban on red, aimed at gangs, raises other issues". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 23 October 1993.
"Cheerleader uniforms cause confusion in Round Rock - School principals interpret classroom dress-code rule differently". The Dallas Morning News. 1 May 1996.
"Book ban attempt halted". Houston Chronicle. 17 November 1994.

Alumni from the school include baseball players John Danks and Ryan Langerhans [26], as well as the cast of the reality show "High School Reunion" [27]. Zagalejo^^^ 04:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are those events notable? School districts across the country have bond referendums, dress codes, and cheerleader drama. If John Danks eats at a particular cafe every Sunday morning, is that restaurant now notable, too? -- Mikeblas 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're full-length articles about the school from multiple papers (some of which are published a good distance away from the school). That's generally enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Of course, this is just a small sample of the 400+ "Lead/First Paragraph" hits I found at Newsbank, and those hits only go back to the late 1980s. Zagalejo^^^ 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A search reveals there to be reliable and independent sources (such as newspaper coverage) available unique to the school to make a encyclopedic entry on the topic. The article currently does seem to pass WP:N, if not it has potential to do so. Camaron1 | Chris 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:ORG reliable, independent sourcing, which is our standard for notability.Noroton 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school+awards+notable alumni=keep; straightforward, really. TerriersFan 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable schoolcruft, with lots of unnotable coverage to boot, making a veritable exuberance of unnotability. Eusebeus 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alums' success has no connection with school in article which means, to me, no connection in notability. Awards are not impressive either. Lots of original resource presumably (or just unsourced). Epthorn 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - incorrect; firstly WP:N is met by multiple sources which this page has; next notable alums are significant both because people interested in the alum are likely to be interested in the high school they went to; also high schools help to develop alums. TerriersFan 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely to me that the sources for the assistant principle award the baseball championship would count as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Do they say much about the school? Enough to serve as evidence of notability? If so, maybe they can be used as sources for some actual stuff about the school. Let us know. Dicklyon 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dub (wheel)

Nominated per WP:N, WP:V, and possibly WP:NOR. I prod'ed the article approximately a month ago, but the notice was removed without comment. Afterwards, I tagged the article for some of the reasons noted above, but nearly a month without any real response (despite my explanation and encouragement on the talk page) suggests that either the concerns I raised cannot be addressed or that no editor is willing to do so. I strongly suspect the former, and so I've brought it to AfD. jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~pimp~~ Delete - No assertion of notability, and I fail to see how this could ever be verifiable. No more bongos 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Further comment Merge any useful content to the article on the magazine and redirect.No more bongos 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC) I stand by my contention that it is impossible to create a decent article on this subject. This page should be at best a redirect to the magazine or to Alloy wheel. No more bongos 04:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete without prejudice to recreation. Searching Google for "dub wheel" makes it very clear that the term "Dub" is in widespread use, not only on the streets, but commercially. In fact, Wikipedia has an article on DUB Magazine, a magazine about these wheels. However, this article is entirely OR and really cannot be easily fixed. If no one can fix it before the close of the AfD, I suggest we scrap it and start over. --Hyperbole 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is clearly notable. While article does contain considerable OR at this point it could be fixed. Sources are clearly available try searching for Dub wheel on google news and plenty come up. I say stub the article to remove the OR and let it grow from there, I will certainly keep an eye on it to make sure it stays clear of unverifiable garbage. --Daniel J. Leivick 08:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable and verifiable...you can get virtual infinite amounts of reliable secondary info from DUB Magazine... Smashville 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur, a notable article experiencing a temporary plague of OR. Trim & keep. THE KING 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, bad article. Notorious4life 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am an anonymous websurfer who came to this page ignorant that DUB = wheel; when I googled 'DUB,' this page answered the definition I was seeking. (10 November 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.33 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi Umenokouji

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section which is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Aoi Umenokouji' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums, videogame guides, and unrelated mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each Virtua Fighter character has a separate page, which might be problematic. I can't vote Delete or Merge on this page and leave the others alone. Could you consider withdrawing this AfD and opening up a discussion on the Virtua Fighter talk page? JuJube 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this. Especially since, per WP:FICT, merge is the prefered option here, so this really ought to have started with a merge proposal. —Quasirandom 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable character with no sources. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT into List of Virtua Fighter characters, the parent article that it's a fork of. —Quasirandom 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why does this deserve deletion? it is as notable as the next VF Character The Straight Edge Superstar 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PayneXKiller (talk • contribs)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yuuzhan Vong

Subject lacks real world notability, there are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. I doubt this is even notable in the Star Wars universe. Additionally, It has been unsourced for over a year. It also fails WP:NOT#PLOT due to excessive plot information in lieu of a real world context. Pilotbob 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be bundled with the nomination below for List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am against bundling because I believe that articles should stand on their own merit. The community consensus on that AFD may be different on this topic than others. It becomes confusing to throw things together. Pilotbob 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stand-alone list for topics that aren't notable by themselves but warrant listing as part of a larger topic. Cleanup, not deletion, is the answer. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no sober arguement for keeping this plot summmary. Firstly this article is written from a heavy in universe perspective which is devoid of real-world context or analysis. Secondly, there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research. Lastly, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these fictional characters have any real-world notability. The article provides a link to starwars.com, which is where this material needs to go. --Gavin Collins 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not getting involved in this debate except to point out that the primary source(s) is mentioned in the lead sentence: "This is a listing of Yuuzhan Vong characters in the New Jedi Order series of Expanded Universe novels from the fictional Star Wars universe" (emphasis mine). The question of whether each individual entry needs a reference is a question I'd leave up to other editors to hash out, although I'd not seen such in other lists I've come across in Wikipedia (eg. List of characters from The Sopranos). -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It boils down to this: If Yuuzhan Vong is a valid article (and I would say that it is), then a List of Yuuzhan Vong is a legitimate content fork. -Chunky Rice 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close nomination was by now blocked sock. JoshuaZ 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiolina Germi

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section which is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Fiolina Germi' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fio has appeared in the King of Fighters series, and all of those characters have pages. It's a bit of a problem to delete this article but leave the others alone. Could you consider withdrawing this AfD and discussing the issue in the King of Fighters talk page? JuJube 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the others, but it's likely they should be deleted as well. Have reliable secondary sources devoted substantial coverage to any of them? Doctorfluffy 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant player character in not one but TWO notable, long running major-publisher video game series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Have reliable secondary sources devoted substantial coverage to this character? Doctorfluffy 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a character list. This article has no secondary sources and no real-world information. There is nothing here to justify a separate article. Pagra shtak 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all character articles into a single list for the series. No critical commentary or third party sources to confirm individual notability. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate, hate, hate WP:FICT simply because it gives barely any suggestions for what qualifies as "notable". Honestly, how many video game characters have had literary analysis on them? Looking at some VG character GAs, it looks like the only way to establish "notability" is to look for mentions of the characters in reviews, in which case neo-geo.com's reviewer on Metal Slug 2 praises the character design and calls Fio his favorite character. Frankly though, I think being major character in 7 video games and a notable crossover in 3 makes her notable enough.--72.204.47.232 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT is pretty straight forward - "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources". It goes on, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content". WP:RS and WP:RSEX go into more detail about what exactly a reliable source is. The review you provided would probably be considered a trivial mention, whereas most notability guidelines require "significant" or "substancial" coverage. Doctorfluffy 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not straightforward at all. The character can't be sold, details on development do not establish notability, characters aren't reviewed, and any mechandise the character is part of would also be deemed irrelevent.--72.204.45.94 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sales don't really apply in this case.

Details on development help establish real-world context and, in turn, notability. That guideline says just that.

Important characters are "reviewed" in many cases. I'm sure you could easily find a character analysis, a critical commentary, or an article detailing cultural impact for Darth Vader, Superman, or Atticus Finch in just a few minutes on Google.

Merchandising can apply in many cases. For example, there may be a line of products based on a ficional character when a product line doesn't exist for the series itself or isn't considered important - perhaps that character's sales make up 90% of the total sales.

I think what you're doing wrong is assuming that it's possible for the notability criteria to be met in a large majority of circumstances, when that's not the case. The guidelines are trying to define a subjective concept in objective terms and are meant to be somewhat restrictive because not everything is notable. Doctorfluffy 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE2: Developer blog entry on Fio. There are at least six other entries that discuss her as well.

RE3: Bad examples. We're talking video game characters here. Seach for "character analysis" about video game characters and you get game guides, which WP is not. Also, Link (The Legend of Zelda) (FA) has no such section.--72.204.45.94 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The "objects" are integral to the plots and storylines in the series. The article appears to be simply a split-off per WP:SUMMARY so as not to make the main article too long. --Polaron | Talk 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objects from The Lost Room

Article contains solely an in universe context. No secondary reliable sources could be located to meet WP:FICT. Not notable in the real world. Pilotbob 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia permits lists that are content forks from notable fiction, where they would otherwise overwhelm the main article. See, e.g., Characters of Lost, List of characters in Heroes, or List of Star Wars weapons. This article is not well sourced (the "References" are just a hand-wave to the official site), but that just means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Wikipedia is not paper. --Hyperbole 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the main reference is the actual TV Show. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole. PilotBob, nominating everythin out of hand is not the solution. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge AFD is not cleanup Colonel Warden 08:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable in an in-universe context, which is allowed to stay if as Hyperbole said, it would otherwise overwhelm the original article. Since, in The Lost Room, the entire show is based around these objects, I think it serves a purpose for in-universe reference. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I'm surprised at the keep votes here. This article is just a giant plot summary (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) with no real world context. Pilotbob 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JBpedia

Advertising new website. Google shows no independent coverage by reliable sources. Notability not really asserted, either -- it's just a "here it is" article. Delete as nom. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~per CSD A7~~ No more bongos 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure A7 applies here -- CISV, the owning organization, is notable: this is just a project that I don't think meets WP's requirements.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, delete per non-notability of project. No more bongos 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Prodego ^talk 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional airborne castles

This is a list of information that is largle non notable. It is not sourced and contains no real world context. It has been tagged for references since November of 2006. Pilotbob 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that it's certainly obscure, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's not notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, delete as non-notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another 'in pop culture' list, consisting of mostly non-notable locations and videogame obscura. Take any fantasy or sci-fi facet and most likely you'll find it in videogames in one form or another - and hey, what's not to like about a floating castle? There may be a feasible article to be written on the subject (in addition to Laputa), but this list isn't it, and the majority of locations listed here wouldn't qualify to be in it.Someone another 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanlistcruft. Yuck. No more bongos 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cause Sky Rockets in FLIGHT! Afternoon DELIGHT! Castles flying even better. KEEP KEEP KEEP. Awesome. 203.220.107.23 11:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We don't want to cause confusion between these fictional items and actual, REAL-LIFE, airborne castles. Mandsford 12:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid deletion argument. There should be no confusion since the article in question has the word "fictional" in its title. 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I guess these are the fictional ones. Mandsford 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(with a slight tinge of regret) as there is no evidence that the concept of airbourne castles in fiction is notable. [[Guest9999 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- No, but it is not unlikely that it is notable, since the concept appears in Jack and the Beanstalk AND The Empire Strikes Back AND Gulliver's Travels (according to the article, haven't read the book myself). 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic. JJL 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, since airborne castles are key elements both in a very famous fairy tale (Jack and the Beanstalk) and in one of the most popular films of all time (The Empire Strikes Back). It could improve if it was transformed from a list to a decent article, called Airborne castles in fiction, dealing with the subject in a more encyclopedic way. I think it is likely that if one looks for them, one could find reliable sources on the subject. Remember, there is no deadline. 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why can't this article make up its mind? Sometimes it's about floating castles, at others floating cities. Clarityfiend 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as a search term. W.marsh 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arquillians

Non-notable fictional race. Article is a plot summary of the race with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Arquillians' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a collection of non-notable, (generally) unsourced entries with no real-world significance whatsoever. There is nothing worth keeping or merging, as that would simply add Trekcruft to other articles. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek

This article is a large collection of in universe information for which no real world context could ever be established. There are no sources to meet the reliable secondary source requirement set forth in WP:FICT. Therefore notability cannot be established. Additionally, this is just plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and puke. These kinds of lists make me want to boke. For the sake of actually bothering to present an argumet, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of yadda yadda yadda... No more bongos 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere else in the many Star Trek articles. Yes, it's fun, and most of us have heard of "plomik soup" (D.C. Fontana's in-joke about something that would sound like "vomit"), but as Pilotbob says, these are plot devices, concepts of something "alien". I like bongos' word "boke"-- never heard of it before now. Mandsford 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this list is the result of a previous AFD of several articles. I'm a bit reluctant to undo the good faith work of those editors. Neutral on the AFD at the moment, though. Otto4711 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hesitation - as the article states that there is a Star Trek Cookbook, perhaps some of these items can be sourced from there as well as one of those Star Trek Encyclopedia things I have seen. I personally don't have one so I can't help. If these items are not sourced however, the article seems to fail from WP:Not as much of the information would have to come from direct observance of the television series if these books do not cite these foodstuffs.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dammit Jim, Wikipedia's not a trivia repository. Clarityfiend 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:OR and I'm sure many others. There is already a Star Trek Wiki for this information. Ridernyc 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AfD that previous AFD that Otto4711 mentioned. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as I've said before mergeing unencyclopedic entries into one article just makes one giant unencyclopedic article. Ridernyc 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is lots of Star Trek stuff that is notable outside the Star Trek universe. This is not one of them. --Blanchardb 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft at its worst. •97198 talk 09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced a bit from the only source I know of that's not an episode (I don't own it, my imaginary Klingon friend does). That done, I don't think any of this should really be in Wikipedia. We're not Memory Alpha or Beta, and if they want to source it there, that's great, but if it's not covered in considerable depth in some source not written by Star Trek producers, then writing that encyclopedia into Wikipedia and sourcing it all from one or two sources focuses a lot of attention on material that really isn't notable enough to include in this encyclopedia.--chaser - t 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy keep as premature. Though the nominator didn't know it at the time, this article was in AfD from the end of September to well into October. Surviving articles should be left alone for a length of time before another deletion attempt. There's no clear place where the line is drawn, but it is drawn beyond mere weeks. This is to allow editors to fix things and/or to decide on an alternate solution to ensure the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of the field (both of which tend to go slow on a volunteer project, too, even when not dealing with a massive and tough article that's a part of the coverage of several dozen works.) Plus rapid renominations, "asking the other parent", would allow persistence and luck to (further) supplant the importance of article merits.

Two other things: I generally recuse myself from closing fiction deletions due to my own activity, but this was procedural (and others were ~~cons~~bugged about it, to be on the safe side.) A general apology for letting the discussion continue a bit after seeing it, but I'm for once confident that you'll understand I was unavoidably delayed. --Kizor 06:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights

This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO). Additionally, I cite precedent from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ancient_Jedi AFD. Pilotbob 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. By your rationale, should all of the lists in Category:Lists of Star Wars characters be nominated for deletion under WP:FICT? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not reviewed that entire list of articles so I cannot honestly answer your question. Pilotbob 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this should be kept because those articles exist; I'm asking if they should be nominated as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow not sure about the category. I think more articles listed in the category should have a pass through AFD, if enough of those are deleted then yes, the catgory should go. A chill ran down my spine when I looked at List of Star Wars Characters man theres a lot to clean up. Ridernyc 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This list was previously AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters. --EEMIV (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this was an interesing read, andin the end isn't that what wikipedia is here for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browny3 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Browny should take note that "an interesting read" is not what WP is here for. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Plot and WP:WAF. No real world context at all. There is already a Star Wars Wiki for this type of content. Ridernyc 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is no out of universe information, such has how they were created and what roles they play in the Star Wars fiction. Without that, this is just plot summary of various stories, and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I enjoy looking at and reading about big blue elephant-like jedi knights... NN, as the title suggests, completely in-universe and unreferenced fancruft. •97198 talk 09:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PeaceNT 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schizothymia

Delete this stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This disorder is not a DSM-IV disorder. Article is utterly unsupported by sources. Doczilla 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Encarta has an article about it, albeit a short one, I think it's notable enough to be here. See also the sources linked here. Also, while there aren't any references, lack of references in the article isn't a reason to delete. Next time, please do a cursory Google search for references or something to establish that a subject isn't original research or that it is notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this term for this disorder is in reasonably widespread use in scientific literature and appears to be defined in all major dictionaries. --Hyperbole 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory search turns up several journal articles dealing with this condition. And let's not forget that DSM-IV hasn't undergone a major update in almost 15 years. —dust mite 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in agreement with current discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close nominated by a blocked sock. Someone else is of course free to start a new AfD if they desire. JoshuaZ 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clow Cards

List of non-notable fictional cards. Article is a listing of cards with their in-universe purpose and their role in the plot with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is non-notable, in-univese material. -- Mikeblas 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into Clow Cards, which is the parent article this forked from (and acts like an index page for, really). —Quasirandom 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(editor of article) want it to be deleted, was going to replace the three seperate articles into one, but it ended up to be too large and didnt know how to delete it, and also redirect pages back to origonal pages with the pictures for visual aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph mitchell9 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you amplify on that a little? Which three articles are you trying to merge to where? If you ask a little more clearly, perhaps a kind person could step in and assist. —Quasirandom 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Clow Cards. I don't see the need to have the list separate from the main article.--Nohansen 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge. A full copy, as it is now, can easily be placed on the Cardcaptor Sakura Wiki (which is a bit dead right now, but I'd like to work on it after the Digimon Wiki is set up), so the detail will still have a home. -- Ned Scott 21:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The nominating user appears to be unaware of the significance of the franchise or the chards place in it. The Clow Cards are secondary are characters (lists of secondary characters have been established as notable by past precedent and appear for almost all long running series such as south park or the Simpons) who may not be notable individually, but are collectively more than notable enough to have a page to themselves.

Let's be serious. CCS comprises of 2 series of graphic novels and 2 animated series, both of which have been released in multiple languages across the globe. It has spawned 2 movies, 7 video games, more merchandise than you can shake a very large stick at, and the Clow cards are right at the center. There wouldn't be a franchise without them. Of course they are notable. 99% of the nominators complaints are simple content issues, it would be much more sensible simply to fix the entry rather than to suggest getting rid of it. I did pretty much all of what is missing last year (as an IP only user, I think), but "somebody" said that the page was too big and deleted most of it. Anybody who thinks that this page can't be fixed likely isn't aware of the series.

On a purely practical basis, merging would make the main CCS page bloatworthy. It'd be a prime candidate for a split which would simply start this whole cycle off again.

perfectblue 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming the cards themselves are notable, you didn't really address the concern that this article is entirely WP:NOT#PLOT summary without real-world context or significance. As notable as this series may be, or the cards may be within the series, it doesn't change the fact that is an extensive plot summary. Forking off content from a main article is acceptable per WP:FICT for formatting/style issues, but not when all that extra content is just going to break policy. Doctorfluffy 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was As nothing was sourced to be mergable, the result was delete and redirect. GRBerry 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

This article is about an edition of Wikipedia, which, according to meta:List of Wikipedias, is only the 137th largest language edition of Wikipedia in terms of number of articles. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Kashubian Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB. For example, the article about Scots Wikipedia was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination), and the Scots Wikipedia is larger than the Kashubian Wikipedia by number of articles and number of editors. Therefore, I recommend a delete. And, just for clarity, this discussion is about whether the article on the English Wikipedia about the Kashubian Wikipedia should be deleted. The Kashubian Wikipedia will continue to exist as an encyclopedia of its own regardless. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure your comparison to Scots Wikipedia is entirely valid. Are number of articles in an encyclopedia directly proportional to that encyclopedia's notability? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that a Wikipedia edition could be deemed notable despite having fewer articles than another edition which had previously been deemed non-notable. But so far I have not found evidence that the Kashubian Wikipedia has achieved that distinction. The comparison to Scots Wikipedia is mostly intended to show that foreign language editions of Wikipedia can be, and have been, deleted via WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, I suppose. Now that I think about it, one could refer to the List of Wikipedias to see which ones have articles and which ones don't. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really don't see anything wrong with this. jj137 (Talk) 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Putting aside arguments from article-counting, it's pretty clear that there's nothing in this article which can't be stated more concisely in the table. Once there's something more substantial to say - news coverage, for instance - the article can be recreated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia 132.205.99.122 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of Wikipedias per lack of any evidence of independent notability. Precedent has established that foreign language Wikipedias are not inherently notable. Terraxos 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 15:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schimelpfenig Middle School

Contested PROD. School does not assert any notability. Of course it is important in the sense that people get an education there, however there are hundreds of thousands of schools in the country, but most of them are not notable. User that removed PROD noted that this article should stay only because X and Y have articles, so I recommend that user see WP:WAX. Rjd0060 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If consensus feels it is appropriate, I would suggest a redirect to Plano Independent School District. Rjd0060 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing notable about this school. Maybe redirect if the school district it is in has a article. TJ Spyke 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect doesn't look like enough to prop up an article on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plano Independent School District - there is mergable content. TerriersFan 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russella

Non-notable drag queen. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Oof. Non notable, obviously. - Rjd0060 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere close to WP:BIO. shoeofdeath 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eon (American role-playing game)

Non notable idea/product that has no reliable sources and is written in an advertisement style. Not deletable per CSD A7 because it is a product/idea/game. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable game. States that in the second sentence of the article. - Rjd0060 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, appears to be something made up in school one day. Edward321 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our new rpg, Eon, has been coming along great so far. nuff said. JuJube 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is an encyclopedia, not GeoCities. Grief. Someone another 06:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet per someone or other. Vanispamadvert. No more bongos 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kind of enjoyed reading the article but this belongs to a draft rather than Wikipedia.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "Our new rpg, Eon, has been coming along great so far". Geocities is that-a-way, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is definitely easier to edit than Geocities (IMO), but that doesn't mean people can use it as their personal website. - Superlex 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acequeen La DeFrancisco

Non-notable, doesn't state notability, no google hits, not even porn-notable. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. There are no sources / external links that don't seem to be directly involved with the subject. - Rjd0060 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of notability claimed but not a single reliable source to back any of it up. For example, claims to have worked on makeup for America's Next Top Model, but isn't on the IMDB credits as such, despite having dozens of others listed. Also gets just 6 Google hits, and of those 5 are Wikipedia and the other is her Myspace page. Speaking of which, she has it set to look like she has hundreds of thousands of Myspace friends but actually only has 200 some... not that number of myspace friends matters much regarding the article, but I definitely get the feeling something fishy is going on here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StarBlind. Utterly lacking in verifiability. —dust mite 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copyright infringement. Keegan^talk 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yangon International Educare Center

A fine example of a genuine vanispamcruftisement. The entire article is composed of originally researched, unencyclopedic, unsourced, spammy and non-notable material. Hús ö nd 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

NO DELETION It's a real school! Wikipedia sucks in research! Go search YIEC in search engines! (YIEC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.138 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Doczilla 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per notability (,..lack of). - Rjd0060 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to Delete: Go and TYPE YIEC in Google you nerds! And go type it in Youtube.com (Maskmaker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete: I see noreason at all to delete this Article. It is based on fact. I saw it in it's original web page. It's all word to word from YIEC web page. One can find it on www.yiec.org. (ISY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it's word-for-word from the YIEC web page, it should be speedy deleted as a copyvio. shoy (^words _words) 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It is. See [28]. If the copy violation was removed, we'd be left with only the lead. Tagged for speedy. shoy (^words _words) 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School seems to get regular mentions in English language media for that country, e.g. The Irrawady Colonel Warden 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is mentioned in English language media. And that doesn't help to solve any of the concerns listed above to justify deletion. Hús ö nd 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sockpuppets and personal attacks aren't exactly helping its case any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (and quickly) per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cam'ron's sixth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cam'ron's sixth studio album

Unconfirmed album, it doesn't even has a name yet, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball Delete-- This is a Secret ^account 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak abstain --124.40.47.134 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're not funny, go back to ED plz. JuJube 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but if it's been announced then it should be mentioned in Cam'ron's main article. L337 kybldmstr 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per CBALL. No date and no info. Bring it back down the road when there is more information. - Rjd0060 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reirect to and history merge with Dub (wheel)~~ delete. Oh, can someone please assume good faith with the IP? No more bongos 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Weak abstain" is not a vote, it's a poor attempt at a joke. JuJube 07:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, none of these are "votes". - Rjd0060 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a case of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This album has been announced by multiple sources. Just because a name hasn't been released does not mean it should not be publicized yet. This album is a much anticipated album by Cam'ron and a name will most likely be released very soon. User: Samuelb88 8:44 PST Nov. 6, 2007.
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 08:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Dyslexia Correction

Delete this ad for an unproven method not backed by adequate research. The article has not established notability at all and appears to have been written with a serious violation of WP:COI. Not counting a self-published source, the references generally aren't about the program's validity or notability. One newsletter criticism doesn't exactly count. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism#help_with_conflict_of_interest_issue. Doczilla 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (Comment refactored by closing admin)[reply]

Delete. If no better and numerous sources are forthcoming, then delete as failing WP:N. -- Fyslee / talk 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Remove some ad-like sentences. Article has some good sources (from third party sites) but a few more wouldn't hurt. Seems notable given that a source or two comes from a government site, which definately is a third party. So, needs some work, but thats no reason to delete it. - Rjd0060 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe that this article establishes its subject's notability. The link within the article that I would particularly like to see (Ref #3) is a deadlink. This drove me to look for journal references; I am unable to find scholarly articles on this method via PubMed, and a Google Scholar search turned up a handful of underwhelming results. I then turned to the News, and the best I could find was this 2003 BBC article [29] that only tangentially mentions the program - this, in itself, does not establish notability. I generally do not see how this subject is notable based on my own, admittedly brief, search through academic and news sources. From a scientific point of view, I think it fails. From a pop-culture / many people are using it / the British gov't is referencing it point of view, it may be noteworthy. At any rate, this article is too long and goes into too much depth on its subject. It's not notable for the actual method itself (though that should be discussed briefly). If it's notable, it's notable for its popularity. Ante lan ^talk 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read carefully, there is no evidence at all the UK government is using it, just that they have "reported a case study involving two learners". That's about as tangentially as one can get. . No sources, no evidence, no notability. Nothing besides their own web site to show how many people are using it. DGG (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-reporting of facts, and echos of corporate propaganda in minor journals. No real notability. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No scholarly sources, with a side of marketroid-speak. This article is also being discussed here. Skinwalker 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is readily apparent by exploring the sources which include newspapers and scholarly sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Notability Detail evidence is posted here: : Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability This includes:
- 1 Published Books Citing to Davis
  - 1.1 List compiled from Google book search (15 books)
  - 1.2 = Amazon Book Reports (46 books)
- 2 International Recognition of method founder, Ron Davis - (New Zealand Dyslexia Discovery Museum).
- 3 Outside Web Links and Interviews
- 4 Outside agencies looking at Davis Methods
  - 4.1 UK - Entry to Employment Programme [30]
  - 4.2 New Zealand Ministry of Education "Literature Review - An International Perspective" [31]
- 5 Media Reports
  - 5.1 From US: Denver Post, Report that school using Davis methods has highest test scores in state [32]
  - 5.2 From Canada: 6 articles listed, most recent from Vancouver Sun 11/3/07 - [33]
  - 5.3 From Israel: Jurusalem Post, 2001, Reprint posted at [34]
  - 5.4 From New Zealand: 2 articles, including one from magazine, "Parent and School Today" [35] (Posted on Cookie Munchers Charitable Trust web site)
  - 5.5 From the UK: 1998 article from The Independent: Education, Reprint posted at [Reprinted at http://www.dyslexia.com/library/clay.htm]
- 6 Educational Magazines - Reprint of article from "Special" (educational magazine geared to UK/SEN teachers): http://www.dyslexialink.co.uk/files/spec12.pdf
- 7 Internet Discussion -- representative links to discussion threads on International Dyslexia Association web site, demonstrating sustained interest from over 4 year period
- 8 Geographical Range of method -- link posted to New Zealand Dyslexia Foundation web site listing various providers of dyslexia therapies - shows high representation of Davis providers - http://www.dyslexiafoundation.org.nz/dyslexia_solproviders.html

Additionally, I have corrected the broken link to the abstract of the research journal article in note 3 of the main article; the full text is now posted at ftp://dyslexia.com/pub/Articles/Bacon2007_Reasoning.pdf

Re research articles sourced in main article:

* "The Effect of Davis Learning Strategies...." was published in refereed journal in 2001; abstract is available at Amazon. [36]

* Rene Engelbrecht, author of the master's thesis "The effect of the Ron Davis programme on the reading ability" is not associated with / affiliated with Davis organization - this could be verified by contacting her via her web site at http://www.rene-engelbrecht.co.za/

Editing of the main article by a neutral, unaffiliated person to comply with wikipedia standards would be very welcome. Armarshall 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of those sources (I will use your numbering on this page):

1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 - Citing Davis (the person) is quite different from citing the actual program, "Davis Dyslexia Correction." The man may well be notable even though this program may not be.

4.1 appears to be a recognition that specialists use this method - that is a valid start, but satisfying to me only with further context.

5.x

5.1 - Davis is mentioned in an image caption only. This is not significant coverage.

5.2 - This is a non-working link.

5.3 - This is the first and only article that I have seen that focuses on DDC.

5.4 - DDC is discussed at the end of the article, but is not its focus. This is not significant coverage.

5.5 - I am unable to independently confirm that this is a reprint of an article that was originally in a newspaper.

7 - Internet forums do not make for particularly reliable sources.

The Bacon paper that you have put up on the FTP refers to research by Davis, but not the "Davis Dyslexia Correction" itself. Unless the Engelbrecht paper is published in a refereed journal, I don't think it adds much credibility, either.

In the end, this is not enough to change my analysis. If I were to change my conclusion, it would be to stubbify the article and condense it down to one paragraph max to describe it as a pop culture, not academic, phenomenon, which is the extent of its potential notability. Ante lan ^talk 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the Vancouver Sun article. Davis's work (the book, The Gift of Dyslexia) equates with the method, because the book describes both the theory behind the method & the method in detail; and Davis has not done anything else of note other than develop the method.

I assume you are aware that most academic interventions for dyslexia are not supported by peer-reviewed research? If not, I would suggest that you download the recent New Zealand Literature Review and look at the chart of interventions and reported research or lack thereof. That is the latest effort of a governmental agency to evaluate the methods and the state of research into each that is available. Your interposition of a requirement that a method requires support of peer reviewed research would require deletion of the Orton-Gillingham article as well -- and exclusion of all references for any possible treatment of dyslexia. Armarshall 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How about independently authored textbooks on treatment that make reference to the treatment method? I'm not out to delete this article per se, and would gladly switch my stance if I felt more comfortable with the strength of the sources. Ante lan ^talk 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the list of titles from Amazon & Google searches that I posted under #1 at Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability. There were between 45-50 books listed. It's hard to know what books are text books, but the following titles seem like serious works:

* Dyslexia and Counselling by Rosemary Scott The Teaching Assistant's Guide: An essential textbook for foundation degree students by L Hammersley Teaching Maths to Pupils with Different Learning Styles by Tandi Clausen-May Dyslexia-Successful Inclusion in the Secondary School by Lindsay Peer Multilingualism, Literacy and Dyslexia: A Challenge for Educators by Lindsay Peer Counseling Troubled Teens and Their Families by Andrew, J Weaver Dyslexia by [T.R. Miles Dyslexia In Adults: A Practical Guide for Working and Learning by Gavin Reid Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice by [ http://www.swan.ac.uk/research/centresandinstitutes/CentreforChildResearch/ Angela Fawcett] The Adult Dyslexic: Interventions and Outcomes by David McLoughlin Dyslexia and Effective Learning in Secondary and Tertiary Education by Morag Hunter-Carsch Study Skills and Dyslexia in the Secondary School: A Practical Approach by Mario Griffiths The following books contain detailed descriptions of the Davis method: The Bipolar Child: The Definitive and Reassuring Guide to Childhood's Most Misunderstood Disorder (Revised and Expanded Edition) by Demitri Md Papolos (Serious work geared to parents and professionals; at 318 describes a private school in Texas that uses "the clay techniques as describe in the Davis "Gift of Dyslexia" program.) Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies (For Dummies Series) by Tracey Wood (page 95, and page 311) (Popular work; at page 93-95 lists "programs used predominantly in public schools" with "Davis Learning Strategies" listed on page 95, with this text, "You can take your child to a Davis center for for assessment and tutoring ... and now teachers can attend Davis workshops and buy Davis boxes (full of materials for small group instruction) to use in class with struggling readers"; at page 311, there are 4 paragraphs about "Davis Dyslexia Correction" in a chapter entitled "Ten Well-Known Dyslexia Programs and Treatments".) Right-Brained Children in a Left-Brained World: Unlocking the Potential of Your Add Child by Jeffrey Freed, (Popular work geared to parents, Davis mentioned on 8 pages; at page 111 describes the Davis program clay modeling word mastery procedures) Homeschooling the Child with ADD (or Other Special Needs): Your Complete Guide to Successfully Homeschooling the Child with Learning Differences by Lenore Colacion Hayes (At p 205 contains 3 paragraphs about the Davis program, describing it as an "unqualified favorite of many homeschooling families" and anecdotal reports from two parents. Upside-Down Brilliance, by Linda Kreger Silverman (This book is out of print, but it contains a summary of detailed report from a group of special ed teachers who implemented the program at their school, describing progress of 4th & 5th graders who were brought up to grade level and reintegrated into regular classrooms following the program) My World is not Your World, by Alison Hale, (at p. 134, autobiographical work with anecdotal report "I could barely read but to some extent this problem has been alleviated by following" the program developed by Davis.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Dyslexia Pocketbook (Teachers' Pocketbooks) by Julie Bennett (at p. 113 - Description of Davis method under title "Approaches based on perception" in chapter entitled "Current Approaches") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Also, see: Literature Review of dyslexia research and programs prepared by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007) (Look at table 2 beginning at p. 41; Davis is discussed at p. 42).

I don't think you should ignore the popular works in terms of assessing "notability" because these are often a primary source of practical information in the world of dyslexia remediation. Again, we are not talking about medical treatment- in the world of dyslexia treatment, parents generally need to go to private therapy or tutoring centers-- I could give you a list of some of the others if you want -- or you would find the "For Dummies" book to be a good reference if you look at some of the other methods listed on the pages that discuss the Davis program. Again, I'm now addressing the "Notability" issue, not weight of research. In the case of Davis, we know that at least two national government education departments (UK & New Zealand) feel it important enough to include in their overview of available treatment approaches. Armarshall 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Research Journal Citation I've found another research journal citation to Davis' work: Everatt, John (1997). "The abilities and disabilities associated with adult developmental dyslexia". Journal of Research in Reading. 20 (1). Blackwell-Synergy: 13–21. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00016.

Armarshall 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an issue with this approach is that Davis is not the DDC. Another issue is that you might need dozens or even hundreds of citations to his work to demonstrate notability per WP:PROF if you're going to go via the academic notability route (and even then, you will establish his notability, not necessarily that of the DDC). Ante lan ^talk 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee requested that I post evidence according to the [WP:N] standards, which is what I am doing. This is not a medical article - it is about an educational intervention, like Montessori method or Orton-Gillingham or Whole language. Armarshall 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recognize that's what you are doing and I am glad that you are posting here. I don't mean to encourage you not to; I'm just trying to offer my interpretation of these sources. Ante lan ^talk 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like original research to me. Bombycil 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranulfism

An essay on real people being incorporated into historical fiction. This might just be worth salvaging. However this state of the article, a) has a title which is a pure neologism and b) has no links to discussions of the topic. So it is currently deletable as original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I think the point has merit, the article is just a rant. The name is made up, just 3 Google hits, 2 of which are Wikipedia. The author of the article doesn't even get his facts correct such as in the section on Rome. Vorenus and Pullo are not fictional characters, I believe they're actually the only leagionaries ever to have been mentioned in Rome's historical documents. Ben W Bell talk 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rant. Doczilla 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Non notable, as evident from a quick google search which has 0 hits aside from 2 Wikipedia and 1 Wikipedia mirror. - Rjd0060 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. —dust mite 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a fan of historcal fiction and I'm well aware of the practice this essay is talking about... but the name is completely made up and this essay seems filled with the author's POV. And I'm disgusted that the author doesn't seem to get the point of fiction. - Superlex 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR about a non-notable neologism. Doctorfluffy 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Lanterns

Article on a small chain of local takeaways. While the article does provide sources it does not asert any notability and they appear trivial in nature, which is the primary criterion from WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a PR wire to get a company's name out there possibly applies, -- in short, nothing that proves its notability. Vintagekits 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination wasn't transcluded correctly onto the AFD log; it's fixed now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, does read slightly like an advertisement, and the contents are trivia-like....or should I just say "per nom". - Rjd0060 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a wide spread, up & coming retaurant, with venues all over Ireland. Also it is much more than a local chipper.--Hiltonhampton 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "up and coming" - its had the same number of outlets for years, "all over Ireland" - not really its a very localised chain, 3 in County Donegal and 1 in Sligo. But get me wrong, being from Sligo Town, I love and appricate the place, I've grew up with it, scoffed after Equinox in it, fought outside it etc etc etc - the only thing is that its not really notable is it!--Vintagekits 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete without prejudice. A7, unremarkable companies. When the reliable secondary sources are here, no objection to recreation. Martijn Hoekstra 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as all three external links in that article are examples of "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Andrwsc 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rockpocket 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Bird (Ashley Brodhead's album)

There seems to be no verifiable evidence that this artist or album exists. Dougie WII 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [articles created by same user regarding same artist whose existance (let alone notability) can't be confirmed]:

An admin needs to look at each and every article and edit by this username, they all seem to be hoaxes. Dougie WII 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Seem to be hoaxes, cannot find any relevant results on google. Links supplied on one of the articles don't even mention the title. - Rjd0060 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of all. i have speedied these hoax articles before now and the user has evidently since recreated them. investigate user's other articles and WP:SALT if necessary. tomasz. 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author keeps removing the AfD tags from the Touch and Sober articles. I guess it doesn't matter since the discussion is still here (?) - Dougie WII 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, the discussion will remain, but one shouldn't really do that. i've reinstated them. tomasz. 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Elder Scrolls--JForget 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skooma

Non-notable fictional drug from a videogame. Merging would usually be the solution per WP:FICT, but that idea was rejected on the talk page. There was an attempt to redirect it to the main article, but that was reverted. Deletion is the next option. Masaruemoto 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect and protect the redirect). No assertion of notability, no sources, nothing that makes it notable outside of the games. TJ Spyke 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the game's article (The Elder Scrolls). Protect the redirect based on previous reversion. Doczilla 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls per above. (Comment: At last, an AfD that actually followed WP:FICT's guidelines of trying to merge first. *happy sigh*) —Quasirandom 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Voidvector 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Redirect as optional. per nom, Not even a main plot device in game. Kudos to Masaruemoto for following WP:FICT and rather than lazily slapping it in the Afd. If all fiction article nominators practice this, Afdland will be less gloomy.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above, and if anyone feels like doing so, transwiki to the UESPWiki. --Explodicle 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. —dust mite 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a minor item in the whole scheme of Morrowind. Not even worth a redirect. -- Whpq 17:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it is featured in Oblivion too, slightly more prominently. --Explodicle 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only-tatu

The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7. Tijuana Brass 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable Somethingvacant 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged as CSD A7. Masaruemoto 02:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

AfDs for this article:

Article is a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The subject is entirely non-notable and the related "case" is non-notable. No changes were made as a result of this death, the sentences administered to the perpetrators did not attract any controversy, no changes were made to Police procedure. The only references to this death are from Canberra, while the Capital, is still a very small city in Australia. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the nominator I contend this non notable article violates wikipedia's policy against memorial pages. Previous discussions have focussed on the argument that the "case" is notable. Now that a significant amount of time has passed we see in hindsight that this "case" is not notable at all. No policy changed as a result of this death. No procedures changed as a result of this death. No controversy occurred with the sentence of the offenders. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has 45 references all from reliable sources. The coronial inquest has not yet reported so it is premature to say that there have been no changes to procedures. I would anticipate that there will be considerable changes when the Coroner reports. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A person whose death attracts widespread media attention - even primarily local media attention - is often considered notable: see, e.g., Jennifer Strange or Joe Cinque. I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is meant as a caution to friends and family members who want to use Wikipedia immortalize a non-notable decedent; that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. --Hyperbole 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is directed at articles such as these that clearly pass WP:V. It's meant to prevent "RIP Johnny, he wrapped his truck around a pole"-type articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any such case can have a lot of sources. Notability does not appear to be established. Doczilla 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to be notable in Canberra (the 8th biggest city in the nation). The article is well written and sourced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It's tragic, but local notability doesn't mean it applies elsewhere. Doczilla 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "locality" is Canberra, the capital city of Austrlia. An event or person does not have to be notable everywhere in the world. Recurring dreams 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely a memorial article. The death was tragic, but just one more traffic accident. No lasting effects on society. Edison 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, memorial, per above. --Astroview120mm 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article is fully referenced and was a notable event for Canberra. It does not have to apply elsewhere - please remember that Wikipedia is not paper and there's room for fully-referenced well-written articles like this one. And this debate has been had numerous times, so it's bad faith by the nominator to try it again when this debate has been had time and time again. JRG 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's certainly not bad faith to revisit an AfD after more than a year, when a once-current event can be viewed through the lens of hindsight. You might want to re-read WP:AGF. --Hyperbole 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#MEMORIAL reads: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." I don't see how that applies to this article. Do we contend that all of the media coverage was for the benefit of friends and relatives? Or that they are the authors of the article? Maxa megalon 2000 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. No one is suggesting that the local newspapers were written by friends or relatives. You have not put forth any arguments how this person is notable. Being run over is not a criteria for notability. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if there is such a thing. An extremely well referenced and well written article which clearly demonstrates notability. Even if the she did not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, the topic of her death is sufficient to warrant an article in its own right. Assize 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough references and local notability to justify this page. Maybe some minor trimming to the victim's bio at the beginning of the article that does read a little like a memorial though.Alberon 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep And I think the references need to be tidied up. A lot are duplicated. Mr pand 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This incident, as the article makes clear, caused widespread rethinking of police car chase procedures around the entire country, and was the subject of massive media attention. How many times do we have to go through these bogus deletion attempts? Rebecca 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes I am a Canberran but as per Rebecccca the case was very notable, subject to extensive and ongoing reporting by the media. I am concerned at the number of times this has come back to AfD. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable, this is not a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, article is well written and referenced. I believe those crying "nn delete" for articles like this are ungrateful for the effort people put into them - WP:IDONTCARE is not a reason to delete them. Reswobslc 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I would prefer this article to be kept, I don't think it is fair to say that those who think the subject is not notable are ungrateful for the work of other editors. Expressing an opinion on notability casts no reflection on either the subject of the article or its editors. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if there was an article on Police persuit in Australia then we could see the impact of the Clea Rose accident on that topic. So far every reference comes back to the Canberra Times, or the local ABC News coverage with one exception being the AAP coverage of the runner who was "inspired by the accident". This seems to have been of local interest only. Would change to KEEP if someone can demonstrate that this incident adjusted procedures for police persuit anywhere other than the ACT.Garrie 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still getting press now, even more than two years after the accident happened. It comes up - both here and interstate - every time the issue of police chases arises in the media. Furthermore, it provoked rethinking of police procedures around the country, though I'm not sure of the extent of any concrete changes, as I haven't actually read up on developments since the start of the coronial inquiry more than a year ago. I'm sick of the bloody-minded attitude of certain folks here - what on earth is the harm on having an article on a really controversial incident that provoked more press attention than, say, most members of parliament would have in their entire careers? Rebecca 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events surrounding Clea Rose's death have sparked extensive debate about police producdues, and this is well documented in the article. As such, this is an article on a notable topic and not a memorial page. As for it being "of local interest only", Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so if a topic is notable and covers an issue of interest to a city of over 300,000 people there's no reason not to include it. The Canberra Times and ABC news are the two main media sources in Canberra, so there's nothing at all wrong with using them heavily in Canberra-related articles - indeed, not using them would be a major shortcoming. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Clea Rose case and Redirect Clea Rose to that article, rather than vice-versa as is the situation now. It is the event that's notable, not the person. From WP:BIO#Specific examples of sources:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

I think that applies here. Phil Bridger 11:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Clea Rose in multiple reliable sources cited in Clea_Rose#References_and_notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person persuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer animated films (United States)

Unnecessary fork from the superior List of computer-animated films which can already be sorted by country, so no merging is necessary (the information in this list exists in List of computer-animated films). According to the talk page, this list was created when an editor couldn't get consensus for his proposed changes, so he created this redundant fork instead. Masaruemoto 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Looking through the talk page and article history, I don't see any suggestion that Cnota was acting in bad faith, and in some ways I prefer the layout of this article to the other, but we really shouldn't have fully-redundant lists like this. --Hyperbole 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no suggestion the creator acted in bad faith, I was just paraphrasing what another editor told me. These are his exact words; "(Cnota's) ideas to make this page complicated and unwieldy were rejected by the other editors... he apparently decided to create a new page of his own". Masaruemoto 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The list is redundant. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Doczilla 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's redundant to a better article Mandsford 12:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of computer-animated films. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—would it be redundant for me to say that this is redundant? —dust mite 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barry Bonds' home runs by parks

The article consists of indiscriminate information, which can all be found on several other sites in their entirety, anyway. Ksy92003(talk) 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate info. Doczilla 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (WP:NOT). - Rjd0060 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a bunch of indiscriminate info. This is statistics about his home runs. Though WP:NOT#STATS says that "long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." But this list is not a long and sprawling list. I think it is encyclopedic considering his baseball career. Chris! _ct 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– I also question the notability of the location of his home runs. That, as well as the "indiscriminate information" claim I made earlier, doesn't seem notable to me. Ksy92003(talk) 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how is the location of his home runs not notable? They all happened in ballparks that have Wikipedia articles. I can understand why one might think that this is an indiscriminate list. But I don't understand how this is not notable. Chris! _ct 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way. Is a home run at Dolphins Stadium any more significant than a home run at Minute Maid Park or Jacobs Field? Ksy92003(talk) 06:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at each home run this way, then of course the home run is insignificant. That is why I group them in a table since the home run record all together is notable. Chris! _ct 06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Huh?' he said in a confused tone." Sorry, but I still personally fail to see how a home run can be more significant in just because he hit it in a different ballpark. A home run is a home run, no? Ksy92003(talk) 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. Yes, a home runs is a home run. But the list never implies his home run in AT&T Park is more important than his homer runs at other park. It basically records the numbers of home runs he hit by park. Chris! _ct 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only saying that a home run in one park is more significant than the other, but also that the specific location of the home runs (whether they are more significant in certain parks or not) isn't notable, anyway. Ksy92003(talk) 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am mystified by your comment. The article never suggests that a home run hit at a specific location is more important than one hit at some other locations. I can understand if you think that the list is unencyclopedic. But to say that it asserts some kind of notability on each home run or each location is hard for me to understand. Chris! _ct 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I'll try to explain it again. Let's drop my comment that a home run hit in stadium A isn't notable than stadium B for the moment. I don't personally believe that the location of the home runs is notable information (dropping the [in]significance of the different locations). It doesn't seem like an encyclopedic list. Ksy92003(talk) 01:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Barry Bonds. Pure trivia, and one thing Wikipedia isn't about is articles made up entirely of trivia. There have also been lists of all 714 of Babe Ruth's home runs (date and park) and the first 715 of Hank Aaron's (and probably the last 39) runs. These would be interesting trivia, but not encyclopedic. This is even less useful than a list of Barry's first 755 or 762 homers. Fans will note that Barry hit more than half of his runs at home at Pittsburgh and San Francisco. Somebody is probably trying to figure out why he hit fewer home runs at American League parks. The effort is appreciated, I know the link to TSN website won't always work, perhaps this can be an addition to Barry Bonds, but sorry, this is not a stand alone article. Mandsford 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this list was in the Barry Bond article and was deleted. I just retrieved the same list to create a new article. So I don't think merging to Barry Bonds again is a good idea. Chris! _ct 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief. Is every permutation of statistics worthy of a new page. Besides Hank Aaron is the record holder. Decoratrix 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly covered by WP:NOT. Vegaswikian 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Quest

Non-notable commercial. A mention on Cheese (character) could work, but not much more. RandomOrca2 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft at it's worst Delete This is a Secret ^account 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Doczilla 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor, non encyclopedic. digitalemotion 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed at the crappiness of this article. Delete per nom! L337 kybldmstr 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft indeed. JJL 15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends as it is related to this article. As this article stands, it is non-notable and should not exist on its own.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Barletta

Articles doesn't follow the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines WP:NOTE Wikihonduras 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this source help her cause? I am troubled by the idea of deleting a non-English language topic, you know, bias and all... Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is just a table of results. This is the only mention of here name there: "Maria-Jose Arechavaleta, Uruguay, def. Sofia Barletta, Honduras, 6-1, 6-0". Orginally the person's name was listed in her high school's article Escuela_Internacional_Sampedrana as 1 of 3 prominent alumni. It was mentioned there as a semi-pro tennis player who was a student at the highschool. She has since been removed from the list of prominent alumni, under a similar argument as this one. Wikihonduras 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Those USA Today results are from the Fed Cup, so it's the same as the external link provided on her article (her Fed Cup Profile). Here is the issue as I perceive it: In the WP:NOTE on athletes, the criteria stated is Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis. But, as with the Davis Cup (the male equivalent), players in the Fed Cup are not awarded prize money and many professional players do not participate. They may be paid an appearance fee or a bonus for winning by their respective governments and/or tennis associations, but that's up to those independent entities. So in this case, whether a Fed Cup appearance constitutes professional participation may be a consideration. --Sesameball^Talk 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't this the "world cup" of tennis in the female side? This surely must count like a professional tournament which makes her a professional player. Chupu 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC) This also counts as she is a member of the Honduran national tennis squad. What difference does it make if a player that plays in the national Congo soccer team who doesn't play in their premier league with this? Chupu 04:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a professional tournament for reasons I've stated. Certainly it could be argued that the Fed Cup is a professional-level tournament because of the involvement of WTA players, but Honduras is in the lowest tier of the Americas qualifying and it's unlikely Barletta competed with anyone of WTA caliber. Also, in regard to your soccer comparison - it is my recollection that most national team players of any country only have individual articles if they also play professionally. I suppose the question becomes this: Do we want to support the creation of individual player articles such that national team articles are the only pointer to those player articles, and the only thing in those articles is the sentence "X was born on Y and played for Z." What purpose does that serve? Why isn't simply being on the national team page enough? We sure don't have any other secondary sources for these people. --Sesameball^Talk 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although the line between amateurism and proffesionalism vary from sport to sport. Being this line less and less relevant today than it was in the past, it could be hardly argued that a participant who has a symbolic participation in a competition which has a cash purse, would be then considered a professional. I believe that is the intent of the guideline of notability for athletes. To differentiate athletes who may a casual participation in a tournament to others who sit at the top of their sport and are remunerated for their participation. Wikihonduras 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate article, unsourced, about insufficiently notable person. Doczilla 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom doesn't question that she participated in Fed Cup, just notability. Therefore, even if nom is correct about it not being professional, it would count as highest amateur level competition. Would be nice if it were fleshed out more, perhaps refer to the appropriate projects? Horrorshowj 06:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a top amateur competition, that doesn't necesarily make the person participating in it notable. Some competitions are the top events in many sports yet they are open to basically anyone and many take that opportunity. The Boston Marathon gathers around 28,000 runners (that classified for it), arguably the top event in its category, yet we wouldn't think that each and every runner is notable enough just for that fact alone to have its own Wikipedia page. Same would go for events like the US Open (golf, tennis, etc). It seems like this type of profile is more proper to go into a blog or some other personal page than Wikipedia. Wikihonduras 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Desperate Housewives cast members

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relevant list, however structure reorganization and some clean-up work are needed. @pple complain 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Desperate Housewives cast members

Another list of people who appeared on desperate housewives, once or twice. This is getting crazy how many of these lists am I going to find. Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN and WP:NOT. This is, indeed, getting rather silly. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restructure. Many series with large casts have lists. IrishLass0128 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and beautify. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are good (and appropriate) ways to bundle characters. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup; this is a list worth keeping. •97198 talk 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elite 07

Article describes a game project that is not notable. Pilotbob 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete project for a computer hockey game mod that would allow players to switch teams around. Not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with NHL 07 Hansonc 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to assert what makes this fan made mod notable. TJ Spyke 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTE. L337 kybldmstr 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Editors interest in this content should merge it as appropriate W.marsh 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation relay

Contested PROD deletion restored. But the original PROD reasoning still stands. Activity on a non-notable web community is not itself notable. No other evidence of notability is given. TexasAndroid 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a game made out of a well know problem in computer science, regarding language translation. There has been a whole bundle of then which i've seen through stumble. scope_creep 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, no article. NN online forum activity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into telephone game (which some racist has renamed "Chinese whispers") or Babel fish or online translation. I've seen this before, usually as part of e-mails and bulletin boards. Short version is that if you translate a block of text from English to, say, Spanish, then back to English, back to Spanish, back to English, the eventual result is noticeably different. The article here proposes that the example would give some insight into the culture of Spanish speakers. Interesting, yes. And it does cite to two sources. It's own article? It's not much different than the spellcheck game that people played before there was Babel fish. Mandsford 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to telephone game per Mandsford. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to telephone game. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep it, but it seems that the article currently is pretty much concerned with ZBB relays only. There used to be a different and in my opinion better version of the article, but it appears to be gone. I wouldn't object against a merge either, under the condition that the operation is performed properly (i.e. not merely a mention of the phenomenon, to avoid valuable information getting lost). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zookan ZZZAP!

A not notable 'television' series that ran from August 2007 and seems, in fact, to have only ever appeared on YouTube and other video sharing sites.[37]. Malcolmxl5 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following line gave me a laugh: "since it had apalling ratings, it was take off Youtube". I can only imagine something so bad even YouTube didn't want it. In any case, delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Note: voters should be aware not to confuse this with ZZZap!, which actually was a real kids' TV series and unrelated to this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrew. TJ Spyke 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. I also have to wonder what kind of show is so bad to get pulled from Youtube. Doctorfluffy 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't think the show exists. Dalekusa 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekusa (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Manger

Does not meet notability standards set forth in WP:BIO Pilotbob 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. Edward321 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin radio

This article is about a non-notable college online radio station. There are only self-published sources as references. 63 Ghits, mostly wikipedia mirrors, and directory listings. In May, I had redirected it to Southampton Solent University, with an edit summary "redirect Unsourced vanity article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2003 with no notability asserted." but someone disagreed. Thus I am seeking consensus. Ohconfucius 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree. --Curuxz 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you must, else delete. Student radio station with no claims of notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of police officers

Unmaintable list, way too many police officers, with no criteria in place. Better serves as a category. Delete This is a Secret ^account 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an indiscriminate list of information, and perhaps could be considered a loosely-associate list. Either way, this list could never be completed or maintained. And there is already a category of police officers. Useight 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - The first section, "Notable historical police personalities" - contains absolutely no useful information and should be removed once all the articles it links to have been put in a "police officers" category. The second section, "Notable police officers better known in other walks of life", seems like a valid and interesting list. I suggest we rename the article "List of police officers better known in other walks of life" and preserve the second half. --Hyperbole 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category does just fine. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. Doczilla 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the second half. Make sure that everybody pointed to in the first half is in Category:Police officers. Anthony Appleyard 06:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the second half, delete the first half, as per Hyperbole and Anthony, since it is not indiscriminate information. As to first half, "the category does just fine" is correct. It's unfortunate that these two unrelated lists are grouped in the same article. I think we should be more careful in evaluating articles about police officers and other unsung heroes, who get less attention than actors and politicians. Mandsford 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify/delete per nom. Nested categories work better for large sets of information like this. shoy (^words _words) 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed the order of the list around, so that it doesn't start with the part that is already a category, and moved the title to something else. It's not fair to judge this article by the first half. Mandsford 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorify per nom. —dust mite 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize - The second half is slightly less indiscriminate than the first half, but they're both pretty indiscriminate. I mean, the second half puts Wyatt Earp (famous lawman from the Old West), Allan Pinkerton (founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency), J. D. Tippit (shot dead by Lee Harvey Oswald), and Charles Moose (police chief of Montgomery County, Maryland, during the D.C. sniper shootings) all on the same list. Much better suited for categories and sub-categories. --Hnsampat 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Categorify This is unmainanable and should be deleted. A category should be created for notable police officers with articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's so incomplete, but I suggest deletion and categorifying per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a taxonomy to describe this is pointless as it would include Category:Police officers who become notable sportsman, Category:Police officers who became notable politicians, etc; having this list accompany the current Category:Police officers system is a useful navigational aid. John Vandenberg 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others said, this works better as a category. I don't see how it's a useful navigational aid, since I don't see how any of the information is useful other than the links to the individual biography articles.Noroton 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As WP:NOT states, articles should not be an indiscriminate list of internal links. As it stands, that is what it is. There is no reason why this would not be better served as a category. SorryGuy 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

This is a non-notable character that only has information provided from the primary source. There is no chance of real world information being added to appease WP:FICT, so the topic does not need to be covered here. It can always be "transwikied" to Wikia. TTN 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikiing is appropriate for material that neither requires an article or necessitates anything but small mention in another article. A character such as Grimmjow does not fit those parameters. Merging is a far more appropriate option, and should have been proposed instead of this. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: 1. Why do you say there is "no chance" of real world information? 2. Why do you propose deleting instead of merging into the relevant character list? —Quasirandom 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary note, since I didn't quite read the whole nom. The no real-world info is BS, as he has tracks on a character album, which is real-world info. May be only slight info, but it's there nonetheless, and establishes information for the character beyond his status within the primary work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quasirandom: There has been no assertion of notability through reliable sources, and as there has been an effort to improve the article, there definitely has been a search for it. To be more specific, unless it is actually shown, there is no reason to speculate that it exists at this point. That is to counter the argument that this can be cleaned up rather than removed. It can be deleted or merged; it doesn't really matter. It's just easiest to go for the harshest outcome instead of trying to play around with the fans. Though, I would just rather see it deleted to get a real baring on what needs to be covered.

Someguy: That is not real world information that can actually build an article. It is on the same level as a voice actor, so it has no relevance in establishing notability. Do you also realize how many characters have theme songs? It's not very uncommon. TTN 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my point, nor a relevant one. it is still real-world info, no matter how common, which makes your original assertion incorrect. Furthermore, AFD does not exist for cleanup or for you to make a point, which you admit to by saying that you've done this for that express purpose in your last line to Quasirandom. You want cleanup, you tag, you don't use this process to achieve that end. you've made absolutely no attempt in that regard. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is in the same league as voice actors, which we do not count towards article building real world information. If we did, most characters would essentially have real world information. As I said, while I do not feel like dealing with fans, I would actually like to see this deleted because it does not belong on the site, and I really don't think we need to cover it beyond maybe two sentences in a more condensed list. We place too much emphasis on covering all characters rather than just the key ones. TTN 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not in the same vein as voice actors. It is in the same vein as toy lines, or other secondary products created and sold in relation to the media. As for the rest of that, that's your opinion, and your attempt to use AfD to avoid dealing with "fans" (a ridiculous assertion) is hardly a valid reason for outright deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot hold an article (neither can any other generic merchandise), so it is the same thing. It would be like trying to assert that appearing in video games is also enough. The article has no article building real world information (regardless of the state of the theme songs, it is not enough to substantiate an article), so it does not belong here. My rational is that it needs to be deleted, but if we end up with merge, I'll live with it. Regardless of how you view my nomination, it is quite valid, so if you want to continue this, feel free to drop by my talk page. TTN 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still find your reasons for nominating this in the first place completely contrary to the purpose of this process, but I'll let it go. Next time, however, I hope you at least try to improve a page, because I know you've taken fire for not doing so before. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not TTN's job to go hunting for something that might be there, without having something to suggest that there might be significant real world information (note the word significant, as in, not just any real world information, but something significant.) -- Ned Scott 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish people would stop using "no real world information" as shorthand for "no information that establishes real-world notability" -- it's not the same thing and only confuses the issue when there are other, non-primary sources. I was going to vote merge, but Someguy0830's right that the nominator pretty much admits this AfD is to make a point, so it's keep instead as a borderline bad-faith nomination. If you really and honestly believe in holding articles to WP:FICT, hold yourself to the guideline as well and tag articles for merging instead of jumping to what itself calls the last resort of deletion. —Quasirandom 03:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional argument for my Keep vote: Someguy0830 has shown that there are ways to establish notability. Tag it for the appropriate cleanup and give the editors who know the subject best a chance to use them. —Quasirandom 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grimmjow's pretty notable. After all he did fight Ichigo 3 times and has his own character album. Hell Pyro 04:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete Grimmjow's page. Firstly, he is an overall major supporter, like how Renji was when he was first introduced. Secondly, if any, Nnoitra's page or Ulquiorra's page should be deleted or merge due to stubbiness, not Grimmjow. Thirdly, you TTN, haven't tried to clean up Grimmjow's article in any way, but if you have done so beforehand and see whether its worth keeping or not, I'm sure many others would agree with you for valid reasons. --Hanaichi 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability outside of this comic series. There is no real-world reason for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or transwiki to Bleach wikia, whether tracks featuring the character is real-world data or not, there is no secondary information listed. And while overlooking the page, I noticed that a lot of it is unreferenced, such as his physique comparing to a character from Zombie Powder appears to be original content. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an attempt at sources, none of which I can read in the least, but a few of which seem good: some sort of figurines, one of the games with Grimmjow featured heavily, I suppose you paint these, keychains, I doubt this is reliable but I point it out regardless, shirt, wallet?, and even his funny outfit. I do realize those are mostly products of some variety, but sorting through Japanese Google hits by website name is hit and miss at best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things like voice actors, cameos, video games, and other merchandise are technically real world information, but alone they cannot be used to build an article. They are essentially filler material to help pack down development and reception information. Without setting up the "girders" (i.e. the connection between the similar character if correctly sourced), you have nothing to support the "bricks" (the above information). TTN 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They cannot build a whole article, no, but they can establish notability, which is the part that most requires real-world sourcing. —Quasirandom 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merchandise does not establish notability. You need production and reception information to do that. If it did, many characters would be considered instantly notable. The most you could place in the article from those sources is "Grimmjow has various toys and other merchandise, such as X, Y, and Z. He also appears as a playable character in various Bleach video games." That is the opening of a reception/popular culture section, nothing more. TTN 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't consider the existence of a character album to be notable? Would real world reception to this album or to the character itself, if found, satisfy your threshold of notability? If not, I feel that a merge to List of Bleach hollows would be more appropriate than outright deletion... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article describes the plot and the character of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A small rewrite may be in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until enough real-world content is found to warrant an independent article. Regardless if the album is real world information or not, that information doesn't justify the in-depth plot summary currently on the article. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I second the statements of Hanaichi and GhostStalker. Big red01027 07:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Hanaichi on this. No reason to delete. RedEyesMetal 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the upcoming plot moves forward this entry will be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.41.31 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the current discussion going on at List of Bleach characters, you can clearly see that Grimmjow has 5 votes keep, 0 votes merge. So, regarding WP:CON, none of the editors wish to actually merge/delete Grimmjow's article. --Hanaichi 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the owner of the Bleach Wiki, I request that it be transwikied to Bleach Wiki, that way we don't lose important info, when the article could have EASILY been merged and the history kept intact.--TheUltimate3 02:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Bleach hollows (with some trimming) and transwiki to the Bleach Wiki to preserve all the information. WP:FICT recommends characters failing notability to merged to articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which seems the best solution here. If reliable sources can be found then people could look into a split at some point in the future. (Emperor 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nom. Grimmjow is a major character in at least 3 of the major arcs (initial siege of the city by arrancar, second siege to "snatch" orihime, and third the battle near the Las Noches). 252,000 hits on google. -- Cat ^chi? 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait and See Keep. Grimmjow is a major character and the upcoming character poll in December will further establish his notability within Bleach and his fanbase. He's expected to 1) take a very high ranking among tens of thousands of fans and b) remain a very important character for the duration of the manga. As a VG editor, I wonder if these anime topics can establish notability with much ease. Video games get the benefit of industry magazines and guaranteed reviews by major organizations. Some even pick up newspaper references and reviews. Anime, on the other hand, hardly enjoys these automatic avenues of secondary recognition, especially when the character in question has not been introduced in English publications or presentations yet. Deletion is premature. Zeality 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of magazines do exist in japan, the origin country of such shows. However the japanese are typicaly not native speakers of English. -- Cat ^chi? 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per nom with Hanaichi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omghgomg (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons Hanaichi mentioned -Twsl 11:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also for the same reasons mention by Hanaichi. Also given the reasons for the begining of the discusion there are alot of articles that i have found in wikipedia that also do not meet this "standars" and none of them have been tag for deltion. WhiteStrike 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply impossible to tag every single article that should be deleted at once. Also, the very nature of Wikipedia typically leads us to having many articles in need of improvement, and never is that an endorsement of their current condition. And no offense, but you want want to run your comments through a spellchecker before going off on article standards. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character is a major antagonist of the series. "Never" is incorrect: episodes with the character have not yet aired in the US and once they do secondary sources can be reasonably expected. Buspar 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources means we'll find real world information, or we'll find TV guide listings for those episodes? We are not sourcing what happened in the show, that has never been a problem, what we are looking for is (say it with me now) real world information. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world information is what I was referring to - episode descriptions can be based on primary sources. Once this story arc airs on Adult Swim, anime magazines such as Anime Insider and others will run profiles on the various characters introduced, just as they have for other animes being broadcast on network TV. Since Grimmjow is one of the major combatants, it is reasonable to conclude he'll receive attention. Japanese secondary sources likely have info already, but those are difficult to use. If we had someone who could read Japanese right now, the article could sport a number of secondary sources with real world info. In time, equivalent English sources will be available. Therefore, this article meets the "Can it be perfect?" test, which is a good reason to keep. Buspar 06:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad then. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, how many characters has that happened for? I would say that the characters of Dragon Ball and Naruto would receive coverage in English before any Bleach characters, yet all of them are in the same boat as this one. Not even the main Bleach characters have received any coverage, so why exactly does Grimmjow have a chance? And please do not use the "It's Japanese, so it's just because of the language barrier" argument. The actual case is that manga authors keep most of their details to themselves, only releasing very small, mostly trivial bits in interviews. The studios that make them are even more secure usually, as they do not really seem to care about things like commentary and other stuff. You'll need to give us an example through another character or this character to have any argument there. TTN 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the main Bleach characters have received any coverage It's clear that you haven't read any of the anime/manga trade magazines, have you? --Farix (Talk) 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I remember reading an extended article on the Bleach main characters in Newtype a few months ago, your "not received any coverage" line is false. The fact is that anime broadcast on Adult Swim has received significant coverage in anime magazines over the years. For example, Anime Insider did extensive coverage of the FMA cast. So there's clear evidence that coverage will come when the episodes air. I recommend you explore what secondary sources exist for anime episodes and their publication histories. You don't appear to be very familiar with anime media or its industry, which is probably why you made the incorrect statement about "no chance of real world information" in your AfD proposal. Buspar 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about significant real world coverage, not an in-depth description of the character as it appears in the anime or manga. If it is the latter, they are being described, not covered. If I'm wrong, feel free to add some sources to the Bleach articles, which are currently void of real world information (except for a trivial little flash movie). The same goes for the Fullmetal Alchemist characters. TTN 12:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Really, is there any reason what so ever to delete Grimmjow, or merge him? I can understand deleteing mergeing Kon's page to others full list or Nnoitra's, but Grimmjow's is just stupidity. Grimmjow is a important character and, who cares if his article is kinda short, many are short on Bleach, like Shinji's for example, but he is important like Grimmjow so there is really no reason to delete him ethier.Ultimaterasengan 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Pollard

Unreferenced biography on a retired police officer. Article asserts that he's notable, but doesn't really say what for, other than with weasel words and one unsourced incident. Was previously marked as a speedy, but that was denied due to the assertion of notability. JuJube 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable obituary.Alberon 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability is tenuous at best. —dust mite 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums and galleries

A list of museums and galleries which Britannica finds the most "notable". First of all, it's POV, because it's an arbitrary list, there could be other museums which could be considered notable. Also, because of its arbitrariness, Britannica might have a copyright for the selection. Other such lists have been deleted because of such copyright concerns. bogdan 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Redundant to the superior List of museums, subjective criteria and possible copyvio, if Encyclopædia Britannica went to the trouble of compiling this list based on their own research and editorial judgment, we can't just copy and paste it to Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and probably a copyvio. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d(۝
♀
▲) 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above. Bearian 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik lindhart

Speedy deleted twice, putting it to AfD. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert notability; no references. I'd hate to use the Google test, but anyways: [38]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using TW to request speedy deletion again.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the future holds for him is Speedy Delete. JuJube 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite a speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:King of Hearts. Can be recreated if in fact he becomes prominent. Hal peridol 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no need to allow this to continue to snowball. Tijuana Brass 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product News - Business to Business

This seems to be a start at creating a directory for B2B product news. Not a good encyclopedia topic - Wikipedia is not a directory. Other considerations are that it's been an orphan for a year and it would require extensive Wikification. Busy Stubber 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN subset of news (arguably actually public relations or marketing) and a loose collection of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads muchly like original research. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT et al. --AliceJMarkham 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, borderline spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Bigvinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.156.143 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/spammish. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR with a hint of spam in the air. I suspect thus actually exists more as a place to park some commercial external links than as a genuine attempt at an article, not that it matters much given its quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm calling WP:SNOW here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - /me sees lots of WP:SNOW here. Resurgent insurgent 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)

AfDs for this article:

This article has been nominated two times so far. However, I firmly believe that it should be deleted. The articles basically talks about how the Comedian acts while he is on stage. Should that belong here in Wikipedia. The simple answer: NO!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 November 2007

Colbert the fictional character, right? So WP:FICT applies here. And as far as I can tell, it passes all the qualifications with flying colors. Keep. —Quasirandom 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. Colbert's stage persona is a distinct entity from Colbert himself. See Creed Bratton (The Office)—a fictionalized version of the real Creed Bratton. —dustmite 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, I don't exactly like how this article has been nominated for deletion 3 times in the past 5 months, as it feels like a failure to respect consensus. Still, I won't make an issue out of it, as there are always situations where such action is warranted. That being said, the Stephen Colbert's persona on The Colbert Report has received significant coverage in the media, especially recently thanks to Stephen Colbert "running" for President, and therefore the character is easily notable enough to have his own article. This isn't like writing an article about how Richard Pryor's stage performances are different from his real life or even how Jon Stewart on The Daily Show is different from Jon Stewart in real life. In those instances, the comedian is simply being himself, not some "character." With Colbert, though, it's like how Jerry Seinfeld is different from Jerry Seinfeld (character) or how Adam West is not the same as Adam West (character). --Hnsampat 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hnsampat. With the presidential campaign, there's no way Colbert isn't notable as both himself an a character. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I didn't necessarily agree with the previous two nominations for deletion, they did have a fair point in that, at the time, the article was essentially a collection of punchlines from the show and in serious need of cleanup. Well, it has received that and it is continually being worked on, so that's no longer an issue in terms of deletion. With regard to your argument, as most of the others have pointed out already, "Stephen" is a legitimate character in his own right, with a fictionalised history, personality, set of beliefs and so on. He is not comparable to, say, the on-stage persona of Jon Stewart, who's essentially playing himself. Shoemoney2night 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant independent sources show notability of character. Hal peridol 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons expressed adequately above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is very notable. Keeping the character's fictional bio separate from the real Colbert's article will reduce confusion. Doczilla 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid reason for deletion given. DCEdwards1966 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Not only is no clear reason for deletion given, but the information stated is inaccurate. Doczilla 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia certainly accepts a fictional character as a possible topic for an article, and considering Colbert's popularity, I find it hard to argue against it. TSO1D 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft

Article is an indiscriminate list of airports that may (speculation) offer regular flights. The article has been renamed 12 times as it is not clear what is being listed, contested prod MilborneOne 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's going to end up being a list of the large international airports in the world. When the hype surrounding the 380 is done, this will seem overkill. Can anyone imagine a list of "airports that support the 747"?--Matt 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. Arbitrary criteria, also. O₂ (息 ‧ 吹) 22:00, 06 November 2007 (GMT)
Delete Makes no more sense than List of airports that are able to offer regular flights by Boeing 737. Good call, nom. FCYTravis 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone above. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsupported speculation. The list even includes Bradley International Airport near Hartford, CT; the runways aren't even long enough for an A380! --Oakshade 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. V-train 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article hasn't been linked to from any serious article, its title is misleading and poorly worded. It's a joke. --Pete 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense. Doczilla 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jpatokal 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Airbus A380 is completely different than Boeing 747 like user Skyling do:[39], and this list offer that a airport can handle A380:enough length of runways, and bigger terminal ..etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairned1234 (talk • contribs) 06:32, November 7, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Sure they are different aircraft, but if a B747 can use an airport, so can an A380. It's like having a list of streets that can handle a Mini and another list (of the same streets) that can handle a VW. BFD. --Pete 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the list will inevitably become a list of most major airports, and some airports don't have sources backing up statements. ~~I would also like to note that I was not the creator, as suggested on my talk page. However, I'm not sure whether that's just part of the {{AFDWarning}} template.~~ Rudget _{Contributions} 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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