Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 17

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 16 August 18 >

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 keep.. CitiCat ♫ 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HedgeStreet

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with the same name, Hedgestreet (talk · contribs), with no other edits than related to Hedgestreet. This is a part of several Advertising pages added to the project including Hedgelet which resulted in a deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgelet. Appears this is just one in a batch of WP:SPA Accounts used to promote Hedgestreet on Wikipedia Hu12 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ See also WP:SPAM Case: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Hedgestreet_http:.2F.2Fspam.hedgestreet.com
→ See also WP:COI Case: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hedgestreet

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue is whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on Systemshock; these two policies are fundamental to Wikipedia. To satisfy them, we need multiple, independent reliable sources (forums, blogs, and wikis generally don't count as reliable) that discuss the subject non-trivially. This is what notability refers to. Although it is clear that Systemshock is mentioned on independent sites, these are generally short references that don't establish notability. The lack of substantial third-party information needed for verifiability means that we cannot sustain an article on Systemshock that conforms to Wikipedia's core policies. — TKD::Talk 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemshock

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

A friend brough this article to my attention. Fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is lower than 100k [1] Computerjoe's talk 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless for almost every english speeking person, also it certainly dosen't warrant an article being lower than 100k.--Kkrouni/Ккроунл/ΚκρΩυνι 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIAS. --User:Krator (t c) 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a look at the article and was surprised to see that it is about a forum with fewer than 2,000 registered members, which makes it very small beer imo. There is no assertation of notability and I cannot see why it is notable. The usual notability criteria apply here, it needs to have been covered by multiple, independent sources, but I do not see them. It does not seem to have won any awards or distinctions of any kind. In short, I cannot see that the subject meets WP criteria for an encyclopedic article but I'm going to hold off for a couple of days to see what I can find. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see now that it's an online community site with 2115 members of the forums. However, I can find no online evidence of notability. In fact, there are just ten ghits for Systemshock[2] with the only two relevant hits being to the website itself. I find no independent sources about the site. The Alexa ranking is low. With no evidence of notability provided and none that I can find, I afraid I have to lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Even though the forum only has 2,000 members, it might still be considered a notable forum in South Africa. Thus Weak Keep as per User:Krator --Darkstar 10:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is considered a notable forum in the South African online community with other forums such as NAG (nag.co.za) who refer users to systemshock for hardware and technical support advice. NAG is a popular South African gaming magazine published on a monthly basis in south africa. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:06 13 August 2007 (GMT) — Howlinmadmurdoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    And do you have any conflict of interest for voting keep?

Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering myself and another person created and wrote the wiki entry yes it is in my interest to defend it. I am a member of the SystemShock community but this wiki entry was created without the owners and administrators of SystemShock being notified. They were only told of its existance once we were happy with it. As mentioned earlier, the forum is notable in the South African online forum community. the MyADSL forums rank higher but SystemShock comes in 2nd with regards to user activity and traffic. As mentioned earlier SS has a reputation in the SA community for its hardware and overclocking support, New Age Gaming magazine refers its users to Systemshock for advice and support. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 18:24 13 August 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment I question Computerjoe's stance on this. He is affiliated with the Vault9 group (www.vault9.net) which has a history of rivalry and clashes with the SystemShock owners. Whether his decision was influenced by the owners of Vault9 (I assume this is one of the friends he refers to) User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:17 13 August 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Alexa is not a reliable source of information when it comes to website rankings. The site has been as high up as under 30 000 in the world. (Tracking Alexa Rank in 2005) It only generates the traffic from people who have the toolbar installed. The site is South African and as such not many people have the toolbar installed. I can very easily get the ranking under 50 000 again by just installing the toolbar on my machine. This is not a valid reason for deletion. I also question the validaty of this claim. Joe has obvious affiliations with vault9 in that blogmad and vault9 are owned by the same people. User:GuildWarsZA 15:58 13 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Disclosure, following Howlingmadmurdoc's allegation: it was pointed out to me by a Vault9 staff member but I was not aware of a rivalry. I nominated the article for deletion as I would any other website with similar 'notability'. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An assertation has been made that this is a "...notable forum in the South African online community..." but where are the multiple, reliable, third party sources that tells us that? --Malcolmxl5 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few urls from the New Age Gaming Magazine forums. Gldm, one of the hardware reviewers for the magazine, refers users to SystemShock specifically if they are looking for hardware and technical support, you can view the post here. Miktar, the forum admin and magazine gaming editor, references SystemShock again in his post where he says, "If you are that dedicated to hardware, I really do suggest you sign up at System Shock, which is where all the NAG hardware writers such as Neo, Gldm and such hang out." You can view the post here. Here is another comment by Miktar regarding systemshock. He says the following: "It really is a well-established forum with lots of members and a lot of expertise. I think you may start to see where we're coming from in terms of not trying to compete in that online space - there is no point, especially not when System Shock does so well". You can read it here. I have one more link from the Xtremesystems Forums, a highly active and notable forum with 56,665 members. They referenced a review done by one of SystemShock's members. You can view the thread here. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 20:46 14 August 2007 (GMT)
That's helpful. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion there is a massive conflict of interest when it comes to this RfD. The fact that Joe is associated with both BlogMad and v9 should have invalidated this request from the start. There is just way too much evidence for this to be just a coincidence. I admit I don't know the policies that govern the day to day running of wikipedia, however, I can't believe there isn't something related to conflict of interests. Staff from one site should not be allowed to nominate "competitive" sites for deletion. Joe has not put forward a RfD since June, yet he happens to put through a RfD for our page on the same day that I mention it on the forums. He was also responsible for creating a vault9 page which has susequently been deleted. User:GuildWarsZA 23:05 14 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
OK, let's put that to one side and concentrate on demonstrating notability. Look at the criteria at WP:WEB. Anything there? An award perhaps? --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never really been interested in awards. I did however put forward Guild Wars ZA as more of an experiment than anything else. It won an SA Web Award. Go to the site and do a search for Guild Wars ZA. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the search results. Although technically speaking not an award, Guild Wars ZA is also listed on the official Guild Wars website as a fan site. This entails being reviewed by ArenaNet's community team and is no small accomplishment. I will be putting through an application for an upgrade in status to Honored fan site in the next month or so. The site has also been mentioned numerous times in their weekly fan site news. User:GuildWarsZA 07:18 15 August 2007 (GMT+2)
That's helpful, thanks. I have flagged up this AfD with the members of the WikiProject South Africa and also WikiProject Computer science to get some opinion from people with a bit more knowledge in these areas. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no reference to directory listings. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2)
  • Keep We were asked to prove notability in the South African market and I believe we have done so. NAG, as publishers of a computer magazine, acknowledge that SystemShock is the leading source of information in regards to hardware related discussions, with many of their own magazine staff visiting and contributing to the site as well as serving on our staff. I'd also like to point out that both SystemShock and Guild Wars ZA were mentioned in the June Edition of the NAG magazine. They were mentioned in a feature called 'Wocking Websites 3: The Search for Local Wockage'. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • One line mentions in a magazine etc is not enough to deem notability. Per WP:N, the article must be either about the site, or mention the site significantly to count towards notability Corpx 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability sourced. Being mentioned by a random editor of a gaming magazine is not enough.--Svetovid 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. No basis for nomination.. CitiCat ♫ 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies For Freedom

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

I nominate this for deletion because there is bullying of aspies at Aspies For Freedom by their Joint founder Sorry, but this is nothing personal, I just think that it's best that this goes now due to Amy Nelson's bullying tactics that she employs against ANYONE that disagrees with her or some other thing that Amy thinks is right when in reality it is not, I don't want other aspies subject to it, I support the aims of AFF but not AFF themselved due to the way they treated numerous members who only wanted a safe place to go

feel free to discuss this, remember this is nothing personal against Amy Nelson, despite the grief she has caused to countless aspies, myself included--Pika Pikachu2005 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Legacy of the American Football League

edit

I'm not sure what this is, seems like some kind of timeline or something which is WP:NOT territory, I tempt to speedy it for lack of content but placing it here instead. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell Talk 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Journal

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

This type of non-notable local paper is made fun of on The Simpsons as The Springfield Shopper. Speciate 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was able to find several sources like this one, appears to be the major newspaper of Kankakee, for what that's worth. CitiCat ♫ 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)a[reply]
  • Weak delete I can't read the entire article listed above, but it does not seem like it's coverage about the newspaper itself, but uses it as an example. I don't really think that qualifies as significant coverage. i said 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete major newspaper of a village is not notable in most cases. The article above doesn't talk to the specifics of what makes a newspaper notable--it talks about a minor safety violation. We don't write articles about even felons just because of the crime unless there is something really noteworthy, let alone things like this. (corporate or individual) DGG (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - Kankakee County, Illinois has a population of over 100,000, and the newspaper has a daily circulation of 26,000. Of course I subscribe to the New York Daily News, which has a circ of over 800K. Anyway, here are another couple of sources - [3][4]CitiCat ♫ 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources turns up at a later date, it could be taken to deletion review to consider re-creation. MastCell Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Boursicot

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

Simple and obvious failure to meet WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I don't put much faith in ghits when discussing AfDs, I will comment that I don't find the number particularly high. More to the point, the search doesn't indicate that the artist has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. I'd argue that the link provided, a promo piece in a magazine devoted to the galleries of British Columbia, Alberta, Washington and Oregon, does not match this description. Victoriagirl 16:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add sources. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My vote recommendation. Victoriagirl 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello! Just two quick points or maybe even more like questions, but anyway, I think that your nomination sufficiently indicates that you "vote" to delete the article. Also, unless I'm mistaken, I thought we don't look at these as "votes"? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the note. It was my intention to clarify things. In my opinion, a nomination is not a vote or even a recommended course of action - rather a starting point for the discussion. While I realize that the nominator is nominating an an article for deletion, I have been involved in many AfD discussions in which the nominator has, eventually, decided to recommend that the the article under debate be kept... or rewritten... or merged. You are correct, of course, that I should not be using the word 'vote' (though I think this is quite common in AfD discussions) - the bolded words are really to be considered courses of action. So, again, in the interests of clarity, my recommendation is simple deletion. Victoriagirl 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Victoriagirl, thank you for the reply and clarification. I'm still learning some of the finer aspects of AfDs (part of the reason why I entered the adopt-a-user program in which an admin "adopted" me) and your reply is helpful in that regard. Have an enjoyable afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In my review I found a lot of hits, but they were all similar gallery hits for rather common stills paintings, posters, etc. Should we have articles on all artists? Maybe, but it seems like a standard of notability should be achieved prior entering an article; currently I don't think this artist has done that. I found no secondary sources that would identify this artist as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♫ 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Tejam

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

Article is about a 'title' which google could not define, but it speaks more about a person (seems to be N. T. Rama Rao) whose article here doesn't even mention the word 'Telugu Tejam'. Google brings up nothing relating to this being a title either. Lastly, there seems to be a book written by "N.T.R" called Telugu Tejam, but that is certainly not what this article is about. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a title of King is not an award. And the title/honor/award itself has nothing to show that it is a notable award. i said 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I is right. A title is in no way a reward. A 'title' can often be a negative thing; They gave him the title of 'coward' when he confessed he was scared of killing the spider. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't say 'reward' I said 'award'. 2) I didn't say the title itself was an award, but the bestowment or conferring was an award. Thruppence 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - I meant 'award'. And that is not necessarily true either. It is, in a very vague sense, but it was not even slightly indicated in this article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express Challenge Cup

edit
Optical Express Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet notability guidelines. The match was a friendly match that was given the ceremonial title of "Challenge Cup", and although a trophy was awarded, it is not recognised as a major tournament, nor is is likely to be competed for ever again. Furthermore, the article does not cite any sources. - PeeJay 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Advertising, and info in other article anyway. ELIMINATORJR 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alturas (frequent flyer program)

edit

It's a FF program for an airline - what is the notability in such a thing that it requires a seperate article? There is nothing novel about it, it does not represent an advance in FF scheme technology or anything that would make give it notability within the field. It requires a single line on the airline article page. Here's I'll write it." Alturas is the frequent flyer program for Santa Bárbara Airlines." What more need to be said? we are WP:NOT a business directory (there are quite a few of those articles knocking about - I think a few more AFDs are in order). Fredrick day 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to {{db-spam}} but someone else thought it "didn't look like spam". <shrug> --Fredrick day 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Rhymes

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

Rumoured album by an artist whose own article was deleted for insufficient notability. WP:CRYSTAL. Same for the two rumoured singles. Paul Erik 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Come Back Home (Monkane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Forever (Monkane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod was removed from all three articles by the same anon IP without explanation. --Paul Erik 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. Nothing has been done since the AfD was started. No prejudice to re-creation, of course. ELIMINATORJR 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Combat Control

edit
Air Force Combat Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is almost entirely copyright violation, copied from http://www.usafcct.com and http://www.specialtactics.com Ward3001 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While it might be a rip of other sites content the subject of the article is notable and easily sourced. I'll add it to my list of stuff I want to rewrite and clean up. This means I might get around to it a few months. Take that how you will but a simple stub can be sourced with a single trip to a DoD or AF website (which hold no copyrights really) and with some rewording it will meet both WP:V and WP:N. NeoFreak 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this article is in a rancid state and needs to be thoroughly cleaned out before it is in anything close to a good state. Nevertheless the topic appears to be encyclopedic and verifiable. I might try improving it a little myself .. if I can convince myself to find the time :) Please note that if no one (myself included) does improve it then it probably is safe to delete and just have someone re-create after the fact. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't the correct procedure to bring this to WP:CV and follow the instructions there? (ie template:db-copyvio or template:copyvio) 70.55.85.118 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both Afd and WP:CV are OK, but if nothing is done to the article soon it needs to be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should not have such blatant copyvio of an entire article sitting unfixed for months or, in this case, years. Ward3001 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-create without the copyvio. We cannot keep a copyvio article while improvements are pending. The lede paragraph is just a copy from the first source listed. DGG (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll edit it within the next week. Can't promise it will be much better, but it won't be copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckles5492 (talk • contribs) 18:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I have known only one "Air Force Ninja" in my 20+ years of govt service and they dont have the time and wont take the time to edit wikipedia. I vote "KEEP" and get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.36.19 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, and there are rules about copyright violation. You get over it. Ward3001 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Povratak na Kosovo

edit
Povratak na Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game mod. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep
And yet very popular on thee balcans ... You can't say it's not natable just beacause you didn't hear for it ... A game like this would never get into USA because it is somewhat contoversal for USA audience who were not allowed to see Albanians on Kosovo as terrorists... SSJ 5
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Only two established Wikipedians wished to keep this article, one of them weakly so. The other keep comments -- including a duplicate by an SPA -- are evidence of an effort to promote this company through Wikipedia, probably with an underlying conflict-of-interest. As DGG observes, if one were to prune the spammy content from the present draft, little text would remain. All of this evidence comprises a compelling case for deletion. Xoloz 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoplet

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

I originally deleted this on the mixed grounds of no assertion of notability and being very much in the nature of advertising materials, given several of the temporarary, unecyclopedic information that is included. However, following discussion at my talk page, I'm persuaded that more people than the tagger and I should consider the case. I note that the three references all come from the same source. I do not agree with the notion that "Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero" in some way gives a right to an article. I believe that there are serious conflicts of interests in the authorship also, given the nature of the message on my talk page. Splash - tk 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite Notability of a company should not be voted by us but by the industry that the company is part of. A good vote of condfidence is by publications of the industry. Clearly, this company has been reconginized 4 years in a row by OPI, the one and only magazine to offer coverage on this space. There is more than enough verifiable links to this publictions on the copmany. If you check copmete.com on this company you find that they get far more traffic than WB Mason, for example. Officeguru 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again – thank you for your efforts with regard to Shoplet.com. The feedback from those other than yourself and the tagger show a sentiment for the inclusion of a Shoplet.com article upon an appropriate rewrite. There is enough notability and industry references to validate Shoplet.com. Below is a proposed rewrite that conforms to other approved articles for similarly situated parties to that of Shoplet.com. It is requested that this rewrite be approved and that an article for Shoplet.com be authorized.
Proposed Rewrite:
Shoplet.com is an on-line e-market place whose core competency is the sale of office and office related products, and competes against the large brick and mortar retailers such as Staples, Office Max, and WB Mason. Shoplet.com was launched in 1994, and maintains its corporate offices in Silicon Alley, New York. Since its inception, Shoplet.com has broadened its product offering to cover over 200,000 products covering office supplies, office furniture, ink and toner supplies, paper supplies and printing services. In March 2004, Shoplet.com expanded its operations to include servicing the public sector when it received its first Federal GSA supply contract. Today Shoplet.com is the holder of 5 Federal GSA supply contracts (GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)). Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. Shoplet.com’s distribution and service network encompasses an operation of 120 people. OPI, the office products industry publication, named Shoplet.com as the emerging office supply store of the year and fastest growing company in its sector in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Shoplet.com is also a premier benefactor and sponsor of the City of Hope Foundation whose mission is the prevention and cure of cancer and other life threatening diseases. This affiliation and philanthropic effort is due in large part to Shoplet.com’s founder and CEO, Tony Ellison, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker. Nymonsoon 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable, verifiable secondary sources to establish notability. Argument of notability in niche publications is not convincing, as no matter how niche they are, they must be verified. A single source is not sufficient. WP:CORP states clearly A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Furthermore, the rewrite is worse. Unverified claims, in advertspeak, are made: Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. "web"? "strategically located"? What is wikipedia now, prweb.com? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Cerejota.Clearly fails WP:CorpHarlowraman 07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♫ 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Discount Furniture

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

Article about a regional furniture store. Doesn't show how the company is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (companies), and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of this chain in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opus (magazine)

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

This is the second nomination; the first nomination resulted in a speedy delete. Student newspapers have no inherent notability and need the requisite multiple reliable references to meet WP:N. This one doesn't. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per Godwin's law. Friday (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Shit (Group)

edit

Non notable, fails WP:BAND, disputed CSD, the user who has created this has given no sources. The sunder king 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Asserts no notability; offers no references at all. The google test may not be the best, but it's all I can come up with, and I've got nothing relevant on Maverick Sourcerer "Hot Shit" --Moonriddengirl 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way we gauge notability on Wikipedia is by sources. We don't just take your word for it. (Nothing against you- we don't take any editor's word for it.) If the music press is giving them significant coverage, we can maybe have an article. If not, we can't. My town has lots of local bands too, but this doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. If more sources can be produced, the article on CUrio can be recreated through deletion review, and this AfD closure should not bar the re-creation of the CUrio article if further evidence of notability turns up at a later date. MastCell Talk 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curio (magazine)

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

No notability established by way of multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N. Delete view. Also nominated Bootleg (magazine). Bridgeplayer 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip

edit
NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is either an inappropriate commercial article, or creationist harassment, or a bad joke. Filll 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways. If Project Steve is proposed as an AfD, the discussion will stand on its own, and I doubt we will lack for participants. Until then, the subject is rafting. We can't debate a hypothetical AfD. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We can't debate a hypothetical AfD." True enough. But we can examine what "Happy Couple" is actually doing with (1) creating an unnecessary article (2) making slurs concerning the organization associated with the content of the unnecessary article and (3) making sure to diminish an established article about a notable topic in several places, including the actual AfD for the article he himself created. You noted the invocation of Project Steve before, but it seemed to me that your evaluation of its significance was not correct. Rather than going another round with the, "But we're not discussing Project Steve" thing, we could just agree to disagree on what "Happy Couple"'s unsubtle allusions to it mean. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is only that Project Steve has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, per Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT article is about the Grand Canyon and its role in the creationism/evolution debate, it is not about the NCSE trip. At best the NCSE raft trip recieves incidental mention which is certainly not sufficient to establish notability. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to disagree, but the Jodi Wilgoren NYT article I linked is essentially a split-it-down-the-middle report on two rafting groups, one an antievolutionist group guided by Tom Vail, and the other the NCSE-sponsored trip. Calling half the article "incidental mention" doesn't strike me as an accurate summary. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that NCSE did not create the article. The article was created by "Happy Couple". Look at "Happy Couple"'s comments about NCSE on this page. I see a pattern here; "Happy Couple" is not trying to do NCSE any favors. Failure to recognize that it's a setup will make "Happy Couple" that much happier. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. This is simply an advert see here. BlueValour 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created expressly to provoke supporters of evolution by a creationist troll, who is probably a sock puppet, and probably has been banned here repeatedly before. Making such trivial articles is an effort to cast the anti-creationists in a bad light, and make fun of them. If we keep it, it makes pro-scientists look silly and petty. If we get rid of it, this sock puppet will attempt to claim we should get rid of Project Steve on the same basis. It is just an effort to make us jump through a creationist's hoops and mock us all. I say delete all his articles, and block this troll.
The topic of this article is not particularly noteworthy, even though it was published in the New York Times, as noted above. It is not particularly relevant. It is not really encyclopedic. Sure Wikipedia can include this level of fine detail, but should it? Should we have a separate article on every field trip you can go on hosted by a creationist? Every type of lecture given by a park ranger in every national park in the world? Every individual park ranger and their specialties? Surely at some point this starts to reach the point of vanishing returns, even if Dr. Scott is a notable figure in this case. To leave this as a real article is to cater to a creationist troll. It is more akin to advertising, which we should attempt to minimize in Wikipedia, particularly in this instance.--Filll 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever the motives of the creator of this article, the material is not noteworthy enough for its own article. If WP went through all information with this fine a sieve, the sheer volume of information would become unmanageable (some argue that it already is!). If the material must be here, then let's move it to Eugenie C. Scott or somewhere. -- WolfieInu 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable activity. While giving the outward appearance of an advertisement, it does seem to written as to have a subtle air of making those involved appear hypocritical and illogical, for example that the lady presenting the creatonist view is "a leading critic of creationism" according to her article. Yep, nothing ensures a lively debate quite like everybody being on the same side. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - I think in order to keep, some editor(s) should commit to making this an encyclopedic article. At the moment it is mainly a direct quotation of the ironic tone of ncseweb.org &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect. --Haemo 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaws and All

edit
Flaws and All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references, sources... no content at all, really. Just a Beyoncé album track. Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B'Day. There are not sufficient sources in the article to verify the information or prove its notability. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creole (song)

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

No references or sources, seems to be all speculation. Just a Beyoncé album track that seems to have suffered from "Unreleasement". Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Song is not notable if no one will ever hear it. Speciate 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to B'Day; no sources to confer notability, which shouldn't be established by unsourced speculation. I doubt any sources can be found to establish notability, given that it's a bonus track that hasn't been released as a single and is only available in some countries — although if anyone can prove me wrong, by all means... Extraordinary Machine 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing i could see that might justify this article might be this vinyl wich includes this song and "lost yo mind" but i believe this was only a promo vinyl not worth notability. i also highly doubt that this song was supposed to be released as the second single if it's only a japanese bonus track. Ratizi1 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to B'Day. No sourcing to demonstrate notability. TerriersFan 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dgip

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

Seems to be the author's own research and ideas. Although references are given, not notable enough for an article, methinks. Chris 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep and Clean Up. ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in women's sports

edit
AfDs for this article:
Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In summary, its a poorly cited, poorly referenced, orphaned, POV-riddled, speculation-filled, un-encyclopedic article that almost qualified as an essay or rant that shows no signs of improvement. I cannot believe this hasn't been nominated before. Cornell Rockey 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject LGBT - Deletion Discussions — Becksguy 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 90% of the article is bullhocky, as nom correctly points out. It might even have been a term paper that was copy and pasted. However, the topic is a legitimate topic, and if all those references at the bottom of the page are valid, then there should be enough scholarly material out there to write a perfectly fine article. My preferred method for dealing with this article is just removing 90% of the prose that is unsourced, but I won't mourn for the article if it gets deleted. hateless 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it is an unverified mess, but it inherently notable. This ought to be cross-listed with WikiProject LGBT. Bearian 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A major problem withthe article is that it is missing in-text citations, making the information very dificult to verify. Still, that being said, the major problem here is not verifiability, but original research. What the article does is take existing information and splices (or perhaps synhesizes) it together to present encourage a particular interpretation, and present an analysis of it as fact. If the subject is indeed notable then a complete rewrite would be in order, but I think the information would be much better served as a small section in Women's sports than as it's own article. Calgary 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It appears this is more of a novel synthesis rather than an actual topic. There are a number of sources listed but I'm unable to assess them as they aren't linked, nor are they cited directly. Happy to change my mind if some evidence that this subject has been given substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the topic of homosexuality in sports, and by extension homosexuality in women's sports, is clearly notable. The article needs a lot of work but there is material there to work with. Otto4711 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm beginning see a pattern emerging in AfD's for articles whose names fit the pattern "POV/pejorative/controversial-phenomenon in notable-subject-area". Is this part of some sinister uber-scheme to establish a precedent? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a bit undecided on this one (yes, I know everyone who knows me is probably shocked to not see an outright keep, but I have to maintain objectivity and honesty). Anyway, the topic seems potentially notable, but I wonder to what extent the article is original research? In any case, a number of references are provided, so perhaps the sub-sections of the article can be expanded to better show what others have written on the topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is at an essay level, with lots of synthesis and original research. Corpx 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable topic and, as we're reminded on the front page, wikipedia articles often start out in poor shape. There are references and sources and it will only improve with this exposure at AfD. Nick mallory 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't in good shape, but it is an important topic. I would suggest deleting it and starting anew except for the sources provided at the end of the article- which, of course, need to be integrated into the prose itself. I say we keep it, and keep that rewrite tag on top until a lot of improvement is made. -- Kicking222 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is plenty of material to use in regular editing to improve this article. A quick book search yields well over a dozen books [8] and a google scholar search has over a dozen articles and studies [9] . Benjiboi 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I will withdraw the nomination if this article can actually be fixed by people who actually know how to cite sources and can make it have a point. however, if it isn't fixed in 3 months, I will bring it back for another AfD. Cornell Rockey 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:AFD - "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Your promise to re-nominate should instead channel that energy into improving the article itself. Please do not re-abuse the AfD process which is suppose to be reserved for hopeless articles. Benjiboi 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent community

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

Long essay-style article that fails WP:N and is completely WP:OR. Jauerback 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a slight case of WP:COI, judging by the only contributer to the article. Jauerback 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as practically unsourced. Giving Jimbo Wales an award doesn't make the ICF notable, and even if the Forum were notable, that wouldn't make the concept so. Google Scholar gives some 500 hits, but those I checked seemed to mean something different. --Huon 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and this is an essay which appears to consist mainly of original thought. It has 4 references in 4000 words, and as far as I can see, three of them are not actually about the concept itself, but background information for the essay. Even if notability were established, this would have to be rewritten from scratch to become an encyclopaedia article. A shame as the author has obviously put a lot of work into it, and it may have merit as an essay, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Iain99 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the length of the article the number/detail of the cited references is strongly lacking. Also the article is very heavily interwoven with analysis, in a manner that is expressly covered by WP:OR as being inappropriate for Wikipedia. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it consists of OR and the article gives undue weight to the subject. A mention elsewhere may be warranted but not an entire article. Brusegadi 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game collector and limited editions

edit
List of video game collector and limited editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure listcruft; furthermore, this list does not add anything to Wikipedia. What collector's editions there are in the world is completely insignificant information. MessedRocker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree: it's listcruft. I believe it's fancruft and just clutter as well. As I've stated before: in comparison DVDs have just as much (if not more) limited editions it seems, that doesn't justify a list of the more notable ones. RobJ1981 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order for something to qualify as listcruft, it must be unnecessary and irrelevent to the original topic. This is far from unnecessary or irrelevent. It's just as "irrelevent" as a list of all the budget games. Xizer 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is fairly standard faire to release a collector/limited/special edition of a video game these days, so there really isn't much to this list that doesn't fail WP:NOT. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MR, as he frequently does, has this one nailed on the head- this is just listcruft. Obviously, a game's article should talk about its limited edition releases, but we don't need a big collection of them. -- Kicking222 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - people can find this info in shops or games' articles or websites.--Svetovid 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC) The actual reason for deletion: collection of loosely associated topics.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - We have articles listing Greatest Hits, Player's Choice, or Platinum Hits games. That information can also be found in shops, games' articles, and websites. Why is a list of collector's editions being singled out? This is very useful information to have a collection of it together. Someone hunting all video games that have had collector's editions released would find this to be very useful. I'd say this probably deserves to be kept more than the discount titles lists, because new games are constantly being added to the Player's Choice/Greatest Hits/whatever libraries. Xizer 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing administrator (and, ostensibly, anyone else) Xizer has specifically advertised this AfD [10] on the site s/he mentions above- though, in his/her defense, the mention does not say "vote to keep this article!", but rather asks if the article is useful and if the info can be found in other places. Also note that Nindanjoe below has zero other contributions to Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I'm a huge gamer, and I've never- in my entire life- heard of specifically collecting limited editons of games. Collecting retro and classic gams, sure. But limited editions? There's no forum on that site that is devoted to limited editions. I honestly don't know what that one site (of the many, many, many sites devoted to classic gaming) have to do with this. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article deletions should be based on its policies, not on the opinion of some neckbeard trolling Wikipedia. Despite the fact that thousands of people collect limited edition video games (and this is from MY personal experience), that is not what is up for debate here. The debate is whether the article is listcruft. Unlike some of the article examples given on the listcruft policy page such as "List of people who have ears," this article actually has useful information. Have you ever wondered why I am defending this article so valiantly? Maybe it's because I collect limited edition video games. There you go! You just heard of someone in your whole life who does collected limited edition video games. Xizer 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I am not part of the game collecting crowd; however, I understand enough of the collecting desire to know that having a list of special and limited editions allows for easy look up. Having the list at Wikipedia will also allow adding and confirmation along with a potential time line for future reference. The argument of the information being found in shops, games' articles, and websites is valid yet is missing something. Shops won't always have the information one may desire. Websites die off. The common element with both of those is time. Eventually the shops won't know what special edition you're talking about. The official websites will eventually change or die off, along with the information. Although not a special edition, a few official sites for old adventure games no longer exist. The Quest for Glory series, for example. Games' articles, I don't know the legal area about re-posting these articles (magazines, scans or otherwise), but as long as they are always available, then you can find the information. You may even find them being used as a source for this Wikipedia article, if it stays. It should already be known about the importance of information and having them available now rather than desperately hunting fohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_game_collector_and_limited_editions&action=editr that exact information in the future when it's harder to find. Nindanjoe 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Nindanjoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep per Nindanjoe and Xizer. As a member of WikiProject Video games, please keep this useful and well-referenced article concerning major, notable and verifiable examples of games. Thank you.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the people advocating the keeping of this article - can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be kept? MessedRocker (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be deleted? 74.71.216.11 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article fails Wikipedia:Notability, specifically the part requiring "significant coverage" of the subject. Information on collector's/special editions best belong in the respective articles about the games themselves; they do not warrant a list on Wikipedia. MessedRocker (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is also Wikipedia:Listcruft, which is neither a policy nor a guideline but is relevant to this issue (as well as the issue of notability in general). MessedRocker (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already explained why this doesn't qualify as "listcruft," as noted above. Do you honestly think this is on the same level as a list of people who have ears? Why should this information be kept to the specific articles themselves? I guess a List of PlayStation games doesn't deserve to have an article either. After all, where's the "significant coverage?" The point is to have a list of games that are collector's editions instead of having to look at every single game article on Wikipedia to determine whether it has a collector's edition of it or not. Is that not the reason why there is a list of games article for each system? So that one has a list of games that have that attribute (i.e. being a PlayStation game)? Xizer 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saying it does doesn't make it so. There is nothing in those that is saying what you want to stretch them to say. 74.71.216.11 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every game that released an expansion/sequeal is going to have a "special edition" that bundles both. There is nothing more special about this. I remember when HL2 first came out, there was a special (or gold) edition, which gave you a tshirt with the box. Special editions, really are not special. Corpx 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Actually if you'd read the article, you wouldnt have to try and remember what that release was about, you'd have a sourced entry describing no less than 6 differences between it and the regular edition. Deusfaux 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why do some people insist on trying to rid wikipedia of this article? It has passed previous AfDs as recently as May this year, and has only improved and become a better article since each and every time. The information provided in each entry is NOT found in the individual games' articles on wikipedia (or any other singular place on the net), and even if it were, a single page list is a far more efficient means of providing that info to users. The notability of CE and LE's could be understood by seeing the numerous articles that are written on major high traffics sites like IGN - sometimes multiple articles by the same website about the same CE (see a SINGLE title; Bioshock, as a recent example here[11], here[12], and here[13] - which you can double for all the 360 version pages). Nominator fails to make any reasonable argument that hasnt already been made in the past, furthermore, declarations of "fancruft" is not an argument at all. This is also NOT just a list of what CE's are out there, but far more importantly, what makes them a CE (their contents, etc). Comparisons to DVDs are irrelevant because we are not talking about DVD CEs, we are talking about video game CEs, which are a significantly different thing. Deusfaux 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article can pass AfD when it had no references, and has since been nearly 100% referenced (and then inline referenced), surely there is less and less reason to delete it as we go on. Deusfaux 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Deusfaux 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Here is a link to the last nomination in May 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer and video game collector and limited editions (fourth nomination) Deusfaux 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Deusfaux 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but create Videogames with a Special Edition Category, or something, and then just include all the games in the category. Fin©™ 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this was a catagory we would lose a lot of editions that don't have their own pages along with the definition of the namesake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 13:18, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep as the list is very well referenced and is very limited in scope (read the first few paragraphs). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suitable references would be to published articles discussing this as a topic.This is a totally unencyclopedic list, about as unsuitable as List of books published in gift editions would be. There do exist some good lists, but this is not among them. Any info could go with the individual articles and I suppose its there already. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to Deusfax's comment: special edition DVD and video games are very similar. Many video games have collector (or special, or limited editions) as do movies. This is an acceptable comparision, even if you refuse to accept it. RobJ1981 05:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a popularity vote. You are supposed to explain how it's "Notable". Also, verifiability was never questioned.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list... this will eventually wind up 300 pages long if you include every collector/limited edition ever released. Better as a category. Nuke the list.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my next comment above. You are making claims not based in reality. As defined by the scope of the article, it is 99% complete. This list would only wind up 300 pages long, 300 years from now. Please stop presuming video game CE's are anywhere near the level of movie or dvd CE's. Also please read the defintion of one and understand how limited and focused the article is. Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims not based on reality? That comment was rude, and just not needed. Not everyone must agree with you: the ones that do, shouldn't be attacked like that. Just because video games have less editions than DVDs isn't a reason to justify this video game list. RobJ1981 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out Deusfaux is posting on many user's talk pages to comment at this AFD. I see this as canvassing: which is unacceptable. I posted on his talk page about this. RobJ1981 11:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rude? The suggestion of "300 pages long" was not a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can agree to disagree; it's a statement of fact which is so far beyond the actual situation that it needs to be called out as wildly inaccurate. Powers T 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yet again. This list certainly hasn't become less encyclopedic since the last time. Let's go over the points again. 1) It's not suitable as a category because this list has annotation which is essential to the encyclopedic value. 2) This is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's tightly focused, organized, referenced, and encyclopedic. 3) While it's true a general encyclopedia would not usually include this level of detail on this topic, a specialized video game encyclopedia probably would; Wikipedia, being not paper, is often both general and specialized. 4) This list compiles specific information from numerous separate articles into one location; restricting this information to the individual game articles reduces the encyclopedic value of the information by making it almost impossible to compare entries to each other. Powers T 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paganistic Gromanism

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

A new (or is that "old as time"?) religion with no reliable sources. Was tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think CSD A7 can really be applied to religions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MX (rapper)

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

British rap artist. I couldn't find any sources, so either fails notability or is a hoax. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skiatism

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

Psychological approach. Unreferenced so presume original research or at least non-notable. Already deleted once as expired prod. -- RHaworth 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatwagon

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

Pure dicdef which is unlikely to grow into any form of article. Article claims it is a recently adopted slang term. Even if this is the case (as a police officer I've never heard it and there are no references to back it up) it's hardly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then move the town article to where this article was. Singularity 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avola

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

Delete expired prod about a Sicilian noble family that has been around for a while but unsourced for over a year as well; many ghits for Avola but there is a town in Sicily of that name either from which this family took its name or to which it was bestowed. Either way, some think that any noble family is notable, so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear Creek School

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

expired prod on otherwise non-notable school, but schools come to afd not delete by prod, so here it is. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems almost like a school website to me - "The Bear Creek School is committed to classical education and to integrating the Christian faith in all subjects, extracurriculars, and across all grade levels." Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Of course schools or anything else can be deleted by prod if nobody objects. The reviewing admin is however supposed to confirm that the reason for deletion is appropriate. If he has doubts, then certainly he should bring them to AfD, but there's no need to otherwise. Absolutely no need to bring them here.We have enough problems with the contested school deletions here without having to do the uncontested ones. It is speedy where schools can't be deleted. DGG (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent sources. Plus, I second DGG's comments; this shouldn't have been brought here in the first place. --Huon 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written in a very biased/inappropriate style, but more importantly, there is no established notability. Calgary 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 00:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the following:
  • First, I agree with the nominator that generally schools (particularly schools which cover grades 9-12) should generally be brought to AfD rather than PRODded. The introductory paragraph at WP:PROD clearly states "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia ..." Can anyone really say that a high school is ever an "uncontroversial deletion candidate"? PROD is not meant to cover these types of articles; that is what AfD is for.
  • I do think that this school appears to be "notable". The introductory paragraph at WP:N clearly states The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". This is a small, very conservative Christian school that appears to be in contrast to the larger public schools in the area such as Redmond High School or Lake Washington High School. Although being "worthy of notice" is a very subjective test, I feel that a private high school is "worthy of notice" simply because it is an alternative to the public schools, particularly since I believe that most or all public high schools will likely have articles at some point.
  • Even by the more objective test that many editors apply, I think this school is "worthy of notice" because its athletes have earned notability for the school. One student won the Class 1A/B state girls golf tournament in 2005 [14] and another student just last week took sixth place in the women's pair final at the FISA World Rowing Junior Championships in Beijing [15].
  • WP:V requires that the information must be verifiable, not verified. While we all want to see articles have better sources, lack of sources is not a valid reason for deleting an article. If some of the material in the article is questionable and lacks sources, then that material should be deleted, not the article.
  • Admittedly the article needs to be improved, but it is much better than a stub and much better than many articles on many topics. The quality of the article, however, is not grounds for deleting the article. WP:SOFIXIT. -- DS1953 talk 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is one thing to keep big 4A/5A schools, whose sporting and other events are regularly covered by media, but I do not find that's the case for a small private school Corpx 07:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable high school. Postlebury 10:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Of course if it's controversial it would come here--I didn't mean otherwise, but not all school deletions actually are. This one quite reasonably is. It's an unusually rigorous and classical curriculum for a Christian high school, or perhaps any US high school, and is explained in the article. Needs sources for that , though. I would be perfectly agreeable to a proposition that there be a guideline that all secondary schools be considered as notable on the grounds that enough information could be found and sourced if the work were done, and its the subject that should be notable, if it were also agreed that this did not extend to primary and intermediate schools. That isnt yet the current policy, though, but these debates are not worth the work they involve. DGG (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep article makes assertions of notability, but would benefit greatly from the addition of context and sources (and some pruning of content). Alansohn 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that it was wise to bring this to AFD because this is controversial; but I think PROD can be used for some school articles in some cases. It is seems to an unresolved issue with school articles on if they should be deleted on what they are, or what they in theory could be. There are loads and loads of school articles in a poor state on Wikipedia, with only so many editors to fix them. That is why I believe in "for-now" mergers into wider scope articles articles in some cases - it usually results in no loss of content, with no AFD been necessary in the first place. In other cases if a school article can not be easily merged and is notable for its own article I say keep it as a stub - unless it is an attack page, copyright infringement or does little more than state the schools existence. In this particular case a merge is possible with Redmond, Washington - though I do not think that would be appropriate in this case. This article is well established and it just needs to be cut down with trivial information removed. A search seems to suggest this school is verifiable, (though be-aware that there is more than one Bear Creek School) so I think a keep is appropriate. Camaron1 | Chris 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability (per, more or less, the points raised by DS1953 which all tend to the trivial in my view). Schools do not default to notability, and nothing here asserts why this school merits encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no notability to this private school. The Puget Sound region has many, many private schools; a few of them are exceptional. The academic program or the athletic program (something I do not find or desire to be notable in education below the collegiate level). It is a private school and it is a Christian school, but those are hardly notable characteristics for a school. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - includes a high school, which is significant, and has a notable and unusal academic programme. Also notable athletics performances. Needs cleaning up and sourcing but those are matters for tagging and post-AfD action. TerriersFan 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Smithies

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

expired prod, another English footballer who has yet to appear in a big league game despite being on a big league team Carlossuarez46 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychofreud

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

Delete contested prod; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Pakman

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

Possibly non-notable biography, contested prod. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the request to restore after prod came from the subject. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arfeen Khan

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

Contested prod. I left a note on the talk page about notability two months ago, but nothing yet. I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, so delete. Chaser - T 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 establishment of any notability, fails WP:CORP. Cheers, WilyD 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Film Festival

edit
Buffalo International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability beyond its own "temporary prototype" web-site and associated blogs & self-publicity sites. No evidence from Google that it has ever held an event. Fails WP:CORP. -- MightyWarrior 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an active organization and has held events which are noted on the website.

The "temporary prototype website" I happen to know is because the website is being re-designed and the organization doesnt' want to be embarrassed.

The board of the organization is extremely prominent and includes Nobel Prize winners, Academy Award Winners and other.

Whether Google says anything about an event is not as important as local press which has covered it extensively.

The organization is currently supporting many extremely important Theater Preservation and History efforts in the city of Buffalo, New York and is forming aliances with other organizations there as an adjunct to the actual festival. This is noted on the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieresearch (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator failed to get support for deletion. Any merge proposal is a matter for post-AfD editorial consensus. TerriersFan 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Cowin

edit

Non notable, fails WP:BLP due to a lack of multiple non-trivial sources about a living subject. Burntsauce 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to both then. In one mention that she formerly was at xxx; in the other that she latter moved to yyy. Both articles would be enriched, and we don't need a pseudo-biography for that. - Nabla 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Delfouneso

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

expired prod, another player for a big team that hasn't yet played the prod-er also questioned whether the tournament in which he played is real or a hoax. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is not a professional, he plays for the club's under-17 team, which is not considered notable under current WP guidelines. Delete until such time as he plays for the first team or at worst is added to the first team squad list ChrisTheDude 09:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Is Emo

edit
Hope Is Emo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable podcast. No references or sources. Also seems more an episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Miremare 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystian Pearce

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

another expired prod on a British footballer who is one a big team but has never played a Premiership game. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Annerson

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

another expired prod for an English footballer on a big team but awaiting his debut. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Fonte

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

Expired prod, but is a player on Arsenal's books which I gather is a reserve position, does that fulfill notability? I'll let the community decide. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments based on WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E were weighted. MastCell Talk 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Silvestri

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

This subject does not seem notable enough to warrant an article ElKevbo 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you guys can call this "not notable" is beyond me... what would be gained by deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morthanley (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 17, 2007

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

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Slade

edit

Nominated for the fact that she has no other notability other her press attention for dating a footballer, thereofre it is not a good reason to have a page in this site. If this decision is to keep, then we all may as well allow articles for all other WaGs, wether notable or not. Dr Tobias Funke 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Scorpios

edit
List of famous Scorpios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should be easy delete. A new list of poeple that are Scorpios... I believe similar categories/lists were deleted in the past. Renata 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Adendum: found the category discussion. See here for snowballing delete. Can't find discussions on lists, but I am positive it came up somewhere before. Renata 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groklaw. Singularity 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen O'Gara

edit
AfDs for this article:
Maureen O'Gara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. Flunks WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E; attack page seems to violate WP:BLP, and once non-notable criticism (sourced mostly from blogs) has been stripped, nothing left. Merge with Groklaw or Pamela Jones seems best, since the controversy is the only issue discussed on the page. Prod removed with only reason stated "take it to AFD". THF 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Dream Team (TV series). ELIMINATORJR 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Martin

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

The lead says he's a fictional footballer, but the article writes as if he's real, and there are no references. Shalom Hello 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not sure who Daniel Martin is (there's a footballer name Dan Martin), but it's likely that the article is written in in-universe style. @pple 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees)

edit
Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly not notable...reference link directs to a page that is still under construction. If it becomes notable we can always allow a recreation if suitable refs are located.--MONGO 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David zonshine

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

Nonnotable person, 1,000 ghits. His band "American Eyes" is not on Wikipedia (for good reason), nor is his group "Courage to Refuse." Shalom Hello 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no numerical consensus, but the strength of the respective arguments, based on applicable policy, is determinative. After meaningless comments like "very legitimate list" are dismissed, the WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO concerns, which are grounded in policy, outweigh the fewer opinions that British Chinese are a notable population group. That is undisputed, but does not really address the aforementioned concerns that this list is not an appropriate way for an encyclopedia to categorise notable members of that community. (This closure overturns an earlier non-admin closure; see bottom.) Sandstein 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Chinese people

edit
List of British Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar previous AFD. There are about 198 countries in the world last I checked. If we create full "List of X people in Country Y" articles for all groups of people in each country, that's 39,006 articles. WP:BIAS states that we can't use the argument "Country X is more significant that Country Z, so Country Z doesn't deserve an article". I posted a query about this in the article's talk page, but got no response. An argument that Britain contains a significant population of Chinese people might be floated, but I'm sure that British Nigerians and Italian Chinese feel their population is significant as well. Lastly, the article is bait for redlinks that clearly have notability issues. I'll nominate other similar articles as I find them or they are pointed out. - Richfife 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people - Richfife 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's note: this comment was originally left as a non-admin closure rationale, which I overturned per WP:DPR#NAC. Sandstein 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong Venue Move to Redirects for Deletion, Non-Admin Closure. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophobic

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

No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DurinsBane87 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rename, as discussed, may be beneficial. ELIMINATORJR 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes speculation

edit
Sherlock Holmes speculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire article is unsourced speculation. Fails WP:V. Thin Arthur 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♫ 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucket's Travels

edit
Tucket's Travels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Novel is actually an omnibus and the fact that this omnibus has been published has been written into each of the novels articles Salavat 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete per reasons outlined below, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. — Deckiller 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars speculation

edit
Star Wars speculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entire article is speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Thin Arthur 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forehead advertising

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

Recommended for deletion as per WP:NPOV. This is clearly an advertisement Unexplainedbacon 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just a plot summary at present - no problem with re-creation if it can be sourced out of universe. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Enemy, My Ally

edit
My Enemy, My Ally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, WP:NOT a plot summarry, seems like a non-notable Star Trek book as well, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As written it is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. It also may not be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I've looked, and can't find any references to it in other media). I hesitate only because there are a lot of Wikipedia pages about Star Trek books (see the many links to them at List of Star Trek novels) and the author appears to be claiming that s/he intends to do more work on the page. However, more than a month has passed since the page was started without the kind of improvments that would be needed. JCO312 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have wikified the page, tracked down the release details and added an infobox, and left in place the Novel article template so that the article can be properly completed (although I don't intend doing this myself as I have little interest in the subject!). The plot summary objections are still valid, but maybe now it qualifies for cleanup rather than deletion? EyeSereneTALK 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This novel was originally published in 1984, and subsequently reprinted in 2006 in an omnibus edition, along with others by the same author and featuring the same characters. That alone probably isn't enough to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion, but there are probably reviews in reliable sources which could be used for that purpose. (It looks like there was one in Locus magazine, for example; it's not available online, but if someone wanted to go to the library that would do the trick.) Within the context of Star Trek fandom (yeah, I know) the books are somewhat controversial, because they were the first to create a detailed culture for the Romulans (which Duane calls "Rihannsu" — yep, I know we'll see that on AfD by tomorrow); this culture was pretty much ignored by the later television series, but some fans prefer Duane's version of the Romulans to the ones with the shoulder pads from later TV series. I'd be willing to wager that there have been articles in Starlog and the like discussing this book. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per research by Josiah Rowe. I don't have them available at the moment, but I can verify that this has been discussed in Starlog and other reliable sources. JoshuaZ 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reasons counter the argument that it has no reliable sources which support notability, and thus appears not to be notable. --Haemo 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jslibs

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

Contested prod. Lacks third-party references to show notability. Represents a conflict of interest, since the article was created by User:Soubok, who is the developer of Jslibs. Wikipedia should not be a publishing vehicle for personal projects that have attracted no general notice. Google finds references to things called 'jslibs' since the name is used in different senses, but 'jslibs soubok' gets only 196 results. EdJohnston 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The only problem EdJohnston, seems to be that I am the owner of the project and I write the article. If the article leaks of fairness, details, or other things, I will change it WP:RS. As you can see, this project has started recently, notability will come later (btw, 196 google references to “jslibs soubok” for a project that has started 7 month is a good interest score, “jslibs” give 54,700 results ... I think that only a few references give the name of the author) . If there is an ambiguity about jslibs, we can create a "disambiguation" page. Please, don't delete my contribution. about WP:COI: my contribution seems to be neutral and verifiable (the project is open-source, everything is verifiable), if it is not the case, i will change any non-verifiable or non-neutral items. about WP:RS: as I said before everything is reliable because the project is open-source. Soubok 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. Sbouba 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) "'jslibs soubok' gets only 196 results" it only proves that soubok is not promoting himself. By the way, 'jslibs -ads' which his the main second sense for jslibs gets 37000 results. Sbouba 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Sbouba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete This project needs coverage from reliable secondary sources for it to be notable. I'm opposed to keeping articles based on "notability will come later" premise Corpx 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Corpx (without prejudice). Notability needs to be shown now, not later; there is always the possibility that notability will never come. However, if it eventually does that article can be recreated (may be worth copying to user space in the meantime...?) EyeSereneTALK 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the popularity seems to be the single argument against jslibs. As a said before 'jslibs soubok' is only a part because only a few references give the name of the author. Soubok 18:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: I think it's really bad to delete this page. I've known this project from Wikipedia, and been attracted by it now. It differs from some other javascript libraries because it is native C implementation based on SpiderMonkey not Java one. And the owner Soubok works hardly on it. He ports many useful libs to javascript and now is working on fcgi implementation. This page gives a good overview to this project. Many more people will know jslibs from here and contribute to it. I hope it can became another cool dynamic server side scripting language just like Python and Ruby. We should not consider one thing only on Google result right? Rui Tang 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC+8) — Tangrui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - no notability established. Also, whoever reviews this AfD nomination should notice that some of those who voted "keep" so far use criteria that cannot be used to support such a vote, e.g. "I have been using," and "I think it's really bad to delete this page. I've known this project from Wikipedia, and been attracted by it now."--Svetovid 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Perhaps some figures will help to estimate the Wikipedia:Notability of the project: del.icio.us has more that 530 references to jslibs, google give 200 results for "jslibs soubok", jslibs.googlecode.com has more than 5100 unique visitors (not page loads) last 7 month and 2230 downloads last 8 month. And by the way, jslibs was cited on the main page of OpenGL (www.opengl.org) on 01/29/2007. Soubok 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: For most people, Javascript is well-known to be used inside a web page. I have often read incorrect articles or tutorials about Javascript , in particular when the 'limitation' term is used about this language because these articles talk only of the use inside a web page. Even if it is the most popular use of this language, it is only one aspect. An equivalent is to consider that Java is reducted to applets. Fortunately, Wikipedia repairs this mistake. There is a section named "Uses outside Web pages" which open the way for a non conventional way. The only drawback is that the mentioned links are essentially paying tools. The advantage of the jslibs article is that it provides an open source library which gives the ability to use Javascript language outside a web page. Excepting jslibs, can someone tell me how you can use Javascript in a standalone application outside a browser without made by hand the basic and common bindings ? jslibs is certainly a recent project but an innovative and promising project, it is easy to use and very powerful. For all these reasons and the accomplished work, we can consider that jslibs deserves its place in Wikipedia. 90.6.150.80 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, is not negotiable. The article contains no sources that are cited to support any of its content. Recreation is allowed once there are sufficient reliable sources - which do not include the previously removed links to various Russian-language websites of indeterminate reliability. Sandstein 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early human rocket flight efforts

edit
Early human rocket flight efforts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. For those parts that can then a paragraph in an article like Human spaceflight or similar will cover it. This article will be a magnet for those webcruft articles about theoretical Nazi programmes which never got anywhere but are written up as if they were fact. For example one of the cited sources for this article stated that its sources were "Reports of several Internet forums at the end of March 2001"[18]. Keeping articles like this only bolsters such speculation. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry (seems like a better page name) if any of the information has reliable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All facts are present in 6 listed sources (and in other sources that links from these sources). Low confirmation of some facts and non-English of sources - is not absence of sources and not reason for deletion of whole article (whole text).
      When article was semi-protected and proposed for deletion, some of important links (added to section "Further reading" almost simultaniously) and note about low reliability were losted - see revision [19] These need to be restored, or those who read, edit and estimate the article would have luck of backup info (reliable or not - it is other question). 217.23.177.50 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of disproof as evidence that these manned flights did occur? Please. And if the article acknowledges that the claims are unreliable, then how are such doubtful claims notable or encyclopedic enough to be here? The answer is that they are not. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly this topic could merit a full article, but there is not enough good content here right now for one. Merging to Rocket does not exclude a future split out from that article. If someone wants to expand this article significantly in the course of this AfD, I would consider supporting keeping it. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting effort into articles and topics that are in imminent danger of getting deleted, pushed around, shortened to near-zero etc. is of pretty low priority to me, and probably others too. I'm tired of defending or improving stuff that gets frequently attacked. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Early_human_rocket_flight_efforts#German_developments_during_World_War_II is documented, even though somebody asked for citations. The ill-fated vertical flight of Lothar Sieber is a fact, as well as the Me 163 being in service with nine confirmed kills. Also, as thousands of V-2 were launched with a 1000kg warhead, a human could(!) have traveled in there instead once, similar to the V-1 which definitively was tested with pilots. Of course, Peenemünde had to deliver weapons, not useless human space flights. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, by "none of the content is 'documented'" I meant reliably sourced here on Wikipedia, not that no documentation exists. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge Shorten and merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry. Lots of hoaxy little myths, lacking references, will only result in other sources copying from Wikipedia claims that 'so and so put a 100 kilogram rocket under his chair and flew from Shangri-La to Timbukto in 1123 AD, having invented the kilogram in the process.' Nip this in the bud, move anything which can be sourced to the other article, and then add sourced info if any can be found. Might as well cite Gravity's Rainbow, a novel by a writer who had access to the V2 program archives, who wrote in the novel about a V2 launch with an unwilling human passenger, "Gottfried." Edison 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge. Lacking good sources this can't stand alone. Rmhermen 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But get some citations to sources, or this is going to plummet back to Earth real quick. You can't launch yourself if you don't have some backup. The episodes, if they are shown to be real, would be extremely notable... but "citation needed" is all over the article. Mandsford 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEMuch of this article is unverified and uses sources that do not meet wikipedia standards for credibility.--Abebenjoe 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was actually expecting a full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair, but was interested to find this history. Rocket is already 38K, which seems long enough to keep this material as a subarticle. It's fine to leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months while people make an affirmative effort to find references (or a lack thereof) that confirm or contradict the claims made. -- Beland 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What material in this article are you talking about?. WP:V does not say "leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months" it says "I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." To date NOT ONE PARAGRAPH that mentions manned flight in the article has a reliable source and it already has been in existence for five days. If we remove all the paragraphs with a citation needed (say after a week) unless things change in the next few days there will not be any text left in the article about manned flight. BTW If you expected to find a " full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair" the what are the sources for it? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maintain a diligent effort to WP:AGF and WP:DBN while removing material for which no one can provide any published source. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 info dump. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones

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

Redlink Farm, no reasonable definition of "Smartphone". No references. Editors with WP:AGENDA intent on keeping the iPhone off the list. KelleyCook 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaywalk

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

Incomplete nomination from Introgressive (talk · contribs), with an editing summary of "No references, band vanity, what else?" Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are either Nippon Crown or Meldac notable record companies? Because, if so, this would barely pass WP:MUSIC as, per All-Music Guide, they have an album out on Sony. If not, delete.--Sethacus 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not admissible as evidence of notability, but the band biography on their website suggests they've got a whole lot of albums, and have toured numerous times throughout Japan and SE Asia. The volume of albums is pretty damn impressive, at a glance. However, my Japanese consists of about twenty words, most of which are sushi dishes, so I can't say anything about reliable sources for now - but I've got a friend whose masters thesis was on Japanese music, whom I'll check with tonight. Neutral leaning towards keep until I've got something to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, keep - for one, they've got a huge discography (42 albums, which do include some karaoke collections, but still), and their bio indicates they've toured regularly. They have a radio show on Tokyo FM, and were one of the bands that competed in the 1991 (I think) NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen, which is generally reserved for one of the best bands of the year. They have an article on .ja; Nippon Crown is located here as well. I'm going to flag this discussion for attention from our Japanese associates to help with sourcing, just to help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, appropriately enough. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities on the 45th Parallel North

edit
List of cities on the 45th Parallel North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another pointless list. It could easily lead to another 179 lists Malcolma 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bulldoze. DS 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charl Ras

edit

Apparent hoax, can't find anything on Google except a walled garden of similarly unverifiable articles created by same author (also listed here for deletion). Oddly enough, all of them cite "unpublished work" by "Dan Biddulph" as sources. At least one of the cited "sources" (New York Times, for Jacob Coates) is fake. NawlinWiki 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also including:

---

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aa1

edit
Aa1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Google search reveals companies like Aa1 USA Co., Aa1 Books, and Aa1 Work from home buissness, but nothing suggests a band Aa1. The only possible source is a german page that turned up on that search (which I have no chance of reading), but it doesn't look like it's talking about a band. (The wikipedia article is on page 2) Furthermore, the article doesn't mention the label its albums are released under. Fails WP:BAND. Panoptical 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a7 g11 -- Y not? 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The office pub

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

This is just a random pub. Without any distinction in particular, it blatantly fails WP:N. There are no sources at all given for the content of this article. The PROD tag was removed by the article creator, who happens to have the same name as the article itself. Deranged bulbasaur 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLab GNU/Linux

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

Non-notable super-secret-SCOX-IP-free Linux distro, no evidence of third party coverage. MER-C 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisting - The second linked text shown by Android Mouse reads «there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Linux operating system distributions already available» but also that «[OpenLab is] installed in hundreds of school and community computer labs across Africa.». Just another distribution? Or one worthy of an article? - Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. This made me doubt about my recommendation, but I could find a few reasons why that figure may not make OpenLab "that notable":
  • It's unsourced and could be inexact.
  • African schools have fewer computers. Being on 5 computers per school in 200 schools is only 1000 installs.
  • It was true when the article was written, but it's not anymore. OpenLab seems to be dying.
  • The vendor provided incentive to use OpenLab, hence the userbase would be particularly fragile.
Since the full name ("openlab GNU/linux" -wikipedia) only gets 92 Google hits, I'm standing by my Delete.--Chealer 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but someone needs to definitely clean up this article. Singularity 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Vasiljković

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

My previous proposal that this article be deleted was removed without any significant changes being made. Most of the article strongly reflects one person’s POV. It requires a complete re-write. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Below, I have explained clearly my reasons for applying the AfD tag. In the first paragraph, almost every sentence is written in a biased tone, or contains information that is not verifiable.

(1 paragraph removed as defamatory comments were made)

I understand that Dragan is revered by SOME Serbs. However, he is considered a war criminal by many (Serbs and Croats). This article should not convey a POV for OR against him – it should be neutral and factual! Otherwise it should not exist!

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own point of view, especially to lobby support for someone who is charged with a crime! That’s what Myspace is for. It is an encyclopedia – i.e. it is supposed to be objective!

Read the rules for Wikipedia if you want to contribute! If you can’t do that, write nothing!


… been held in an Australian prison for over one and a half years with convicted prisoners, yet he himself has not been charged.

Your tone implies that he is the victim of an injustice. This is your POV!

What makes Dragans case interesting…

Interesting to who? You? You are expressing your POV.

is that even though he has been an Australian citizen for over 30 years, no evidence of the allegations against him was required by the Australian government.

Again, use a neutral tone!

If it was the USA, Canada, NZ or the UK requesting his extradition, an evidence case is mandatory (House of commons 2003).

Not verifiable!

Dragan is revered by the Serbian people because after his role in the war

Not verifiable!

The Serbian people believe…

You do not speak for all Serbs!

They are petitioning for him to face the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague if he must face trial.

Are all Serbs in the world are signing this petition?

However, they also claim that he has already faced 18 hours of questioning at the War Crimes Tribunal and even rejected an offer of immunity for anything that he might have done. He was released and not one of his men were indicted.

Again, you are conveying YOUR point of view that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, the Serbian community believe that the accusations against Dragan are unfounded and are just a means to get him into Croatia. They are also surprised that Dragan (AKA Daniel Snedden) has not received the public support that David Hicks has.

This comparison is stupid - Hicks and Dragan have nothing in common.

In July 2007 Dragan was able to commence the defamation proceedings against Nationwide news. The court found that six out of ten of the statements against Dragan were libellous and defamatory.The proceedings are stood over in the Supreme Court of New South Wales until 27th July 2007.

You are only selecting the results of the trial that support your POV!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaark (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, but rewrite because it's pretty POV at the moment. What is it about articles concerning the Balkans that they seem to always be a cesspit of racial POV? Also, this page is a discussion on whether to keep this article, not a discussion on the merits of the prosecution case against Vasiljkovic. Lankiveil 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11 - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last 4 feet

edit
The last 4 feet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm concerned about the notability of this company; however, I want to bring it before the community to establish a consensus. Spring Rubber 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Motivation Questionnaire

edit
Reading Motivation Questionnaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't really seem to be a notable concept. 215 non-wiki ghits, no evidence of mainstream coverage. It also turns out that the author of this article, Dduttaroy (talk · contribs) is the author of the only paper (listed in the sources section) on the subject. MER-C 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was majority in favour of deletion, 6-4 with all but one of the keeps weak. Importantly, no notability has been asserted in the article and none of the keepers have been able to source anything notable, for example awards or independent reviews in significant publications. TerriersFan 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation's Giant Hamburgers

edit

Non-notable restaurant chain, no independent references given, fails WP:CORP. Recreated after deletion in November 2005. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bytch Killa

edit
Mr Bytch Killa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page contains fictitious person without reference to printed materials that contain the subject in the article. Calroe 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus, NM

edit
Lazarus, NM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a bogus show article started by someone with a checkered wiki-past. Tbone2001 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. — TKD::Talk 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Sayer

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

Procedural, prod removed without addressing the concerns - no verifiable assertion of notability. The Rambling Man 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed)

edit
Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable mixtape that's not the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. By "non-trivial", I mean it's not the subject of anything beyond a track list. Spellcast 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Arizona by city of license

edit
List of television stations in Arizona by city of license (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I don't see why we need a list that is listed by the city of license. --Hirohisat Talk 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dao

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

Alleged YouTube celebrity; but subject lacks outside coverage. YouTube stats are respectable, though dwarfed by other YouTube celebs'. Ichormosquito 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most of the editing, actually all except for adding tags, was done by a single user. Seems to be a fan. Mostly the subject lacks notability, aside from his personal account on youtube and fansite. Zchris87v 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 links provided in the last comment are stories mostly about oil prices in general; this company is mentioned in the context of being representative of general trends. As brought up in the discussion, this isn't enough to qualify as a reliable source about the company. — TKD::Talk 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rozoil

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

Non-notable energy startup; article appears to exist largely just to promote the company. ghits [23] NMChico24 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to spread information and knowledge to places that this information and knowledge would be otherwise unknown, than there is no practical reason that this entry be deleted. Those who are not familiar with the Heating Oil Industry in New Haven CT, will have no clue who Rozoil is and why the company is important to note, both in a historical context of heating oil and the New Haven heating oil market, and also in a business perspective. Being that Rozoil is a progressive company many other companies have recently been changed or formed to follow a similar business model.

Those who have elected to have this entry be deleted simply do not see why this article and the topics discussed in it are relevant. If anything as it's creator I would say that this article should be given time so that it can be edited to provide more sources and or clean up to substantiate the points and information that make it worthy to be read. In short the COD type of heating oil companies were started during the 1980's in New Haven, CT and have since spread throughout the Northeast. Unfortunately there is not substantial data on the internet that is readily available that can back this. But I do know that Bigger Automatic companies have tried for decades to squash the COD business and this could be a real reason as to why we don’t hear that much about it. Whatever the reason may be, Rozoil is the Biggest COD company in the region, and because of this it is worthy of recognition. I do not think that this article is offering spam, and the reality is Rozoil is heavily searched word on the internet in New Haven. The more information that readers have about the oil industry, and the players involved in local, regional and global dealings with this subject, the better. I would not flag for deletion an article about the Hassane Tribe in the Western Sahara as a possible plug to initiate a tribal war, but would read it with interest. So the same if somebody is interested in the heating oil industry of new haven, or COD oil companies than they will have an article to read in Rozoil. So to close, this article should remain on Wikipedia, time should be given that better sources used as references, and the News articles that have made recent headlines about the company should prove it is worthy of attention and capable of providing a source of knowledge and information. Negevboy 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Negevboy - actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a a collection of everything that has ever existed. Unless this company is to be historically notable in some way, and you have the reliable sources to verify this notability, then this company doesn't warrant an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to NeoChaos - Thank you for reading my post. I have noted 3 significant points that are worthy of this article being kept. 1) There is no mention of the COD Heating Oil business on Wikipedia. 2) The New Haven Heating Oil Market, is one of the most competitive oil markets in the country, 3) Rozoil is the biggest COD heating oil company in New Haven. I agree with you that their needs to be better representation of these points so that they can be sourced back too, in some way - so that this will not be perceived as an advertisement - this only needs time and not deletion. Although, as I have mentioned, little is circulating about COD companies because the major Automatic Companies have attempted to squash them, in every way shape and form. Just out of curiosity why would [[24]]be allowed an article and Rozoil not? Negevboy 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding that article you linked, just because an article for one small business exists doesn't mean other businesses can have one, too. Articles still need to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines, and those that get away with it can sometimes be too obscure for most editors to notice (but thanks for pointing it out!). In regards to Rozoil, you can save the article with supplying reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the company (as well as back up the three points you made), and reference those sources in the article. This discussion will run 5 days, so that's plenty of time for you to find sources and improve the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per: WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. I don't think the few external sources cited have sufficient depth to prove notability. (Ie, one line in a local newspaper quoting a company regarding the price of oil does not a WP:RS make. Also, as a note to Negevboy: Bob's_Discount_Furniture is now being considered for deletion as well. bfigura (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are more sources that should substantiate the companies notability besides "1 line" - Try two 5' oclock news reports with video, on two TV stations, [25] and [26] and many more mentions in the New Haven Register - July 06 [27]Jan 06 [28]Feb 06 [29], July 07, [30]The trend has been, that to follow what is going on the New Haven Oil Market - just ask Rozoil. They are a (notable) leader in their market and these sorces prove that. Negevboy 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of reliable sources found. The article only provides press releases and a source that mentions the company trivially, and no one has provided concrete examples of suitable sources. — TKD::Talk 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Butler

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

Artice reads like an ad and gives unnecessary list of places it services. Was originally tagged as WP:CSD#G11 but it has been around a while and may have some salvageable content so I am bringing it here for the community to review. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking back at the history it seems it may have been deleted before and recreated. In any event, it blatantly fails WP:CSD#G11. Oodles of advertising doesn't make content. bfigura (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pet Butler should probably copy and paste everything before it's deleted - this would make a great website for the company. Zchris87v 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it just needs rewriting. Currently, it is written like an advert and displays examples of POV, but the company certainly isn't non-noteable from what I've seen on Google and Yahoo and the references that are provided. Requires clean-up operation to make it worthy enough to be called a Wikipedia article. Lradrama 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sounds like a notable service, but the article needs some cleanup, with the locations list going first. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatantly spam. Don't know how you can rewrite it without a continuation of spam.
  • Delete I didnt know such a service existed, so there might be room for an article on the business niche in general, but this company isnt notable--13 locations only. DGG (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe if they were a publicly traded company and had some historical reference. This is a small pet business. Not much notable. It's apparent it is here for advertising. No content here, just advertising.
  • Delete - seems like an ad to me. A quick scan through the references shows that they're mostly from the company itself. TheIslander 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- Back in June I took a shot at deleting the pure advertising from the article -- this revision was what I came up with. It was reverted a month later by an apparent single-purpose editor (edit summary : "restoring after vandalism") to a version nearly identical to the current one. I think the non-advertising version is in the 'barely notable' category, and would keep that one, but the current article doesn't cut it. -- ArglebargleIV 05:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
ever}}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal Crossing Project

edit
The Animal Crossing Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable web movie. Lacks reliable sources, especially since a search engine result for "The Animal Crossing Project" -wikipedia results in only 7 results, all of them either YouTube video links or forum posts. Alasdair 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a fan tribute, not an encyclopedic content. --Hirohisat Talk 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any references or notability. Same reasons as above. Zchris87v 06:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot. The page at issue is currently a redirect, and redirects for deletion belong somewhere else. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic art music

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

Page moved to History of Electronic Music

The article is a the histroy of electronic music but the user create it with the name art add because there is an electronic music article already exist. Two things same name. Now some adjust to move it in History of Electronic Music. There is no need for this Electronic Art Music, please vote delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_music Susume-eat 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is moved the page by copy-paste. You don't want to do that, for this reason, from WP:MOVE:
Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)
I'm going to undo it. You may either propose the move by suggesting on the talk page, or being bold and doing it yourself, in which case the original page is converted into a redirect. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Improperly formatted AfD. This is a major music genre article with extensive content. There are complex merge discussions in progress but the idea of just deleting it is simply absurd.
    Also: this AfD is not formatted correctly. There is no notification on the article page.
    And: the nominator moved the page to a different title without any discussion. I've moved it back over the redirect. --Parsifal Hello 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major topic, I don't think this needs to be deleted. --Hirohisat Talk 06:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As noted above, there may be some merge issues (along with some need for further attribution). But as the article currently stands, it discusses a genre of music with a great deal of content and sourcing, and clearly meets WP:N. Given the facts (to say nothing of the AfD protocol issues), I think it's worth invoking WP:SNOW and keeping now. bfigura (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Copyright-violative material removed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knud Olsen

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

This is a near-copyvio of this, using a few changed words and altered bits to get out of it. It's not direct, so thats why I brought it here. thoughts? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what needs to be done is to write it in your own words. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify. Yes, the issue was one of copyright violation. What needs to be done is to write the article in your own words. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close I have reduced the article to a stub to remove the copyright violation. The article can now be rebuilt using your own words. I invite speedy close as the reason for the nomination no longer exists. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Amnesty International as applicable. Sandstein 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights groups and the Middle East

edit
AfDs for this article:
Human rights groups and the Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fixing re-nomination for deletion by User:68.72.37.26 on request by user. The reasoning behind nomination for deletion, as appearing on article talk page, is "The article appears to be dead (if it ever was living).. no one has edited it in months. All of the material appears in the parent articles, so the entire article appears to be redundant". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm the IP user who had Ceyockey post this on AfD for me. The old result was keep, but all of the information on this page appears to have already merged on to Amnesty International or Criticism of Human Rights Watch in either original form, or as an updated criticism. As stated in my post on the article's talk page, the article appears to now be dead. --Nosfartu 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back into parent articles Once again, this was originally split off from the respective organization's parent articles as being called "too overwheming" and WP:SUMMARY was invoked. The information cannot be spun off and then deleted out of hand, as it is reliably and verifiably cited, and eminently notable. IF all the materal appears in the parent articles, then this can be removed, else it must be kept. Avi 06:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand seems like it's built on solid foundations, just lacks work, most likely keep and expand, if the expansion cannot/isn't done then go for 3rd AfD--Sharz 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is built on WP:SYNTH, where a bunch of not directly related facts are tied together under a big umbrella Corpx 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge applicable information into the Amnesty International article, which does not have this more critical language (this would seem a POV fork violation). --Storm Rider (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging applicable information onto the Amnesty International article and removing this article is what Avi and I seem to think as well. --Nosfartu 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sermon of the roar of a camel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously considered at AFD in June 2006 with an outcome of 'keep'; the basis for nomination was that the content could never move beyond being a dictionary definition. In August 2007, article was nominated for deletion by WP:PROD, a technically incorrect action for articles previously considered at AFD; the article appears here to correct this action. The reasoning behind second nomination for deletion was "Wikipedia is not a textbook of quotations from the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should it contain commentary on the primary sources." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It appears to be an entry on a notable sermon, and as has been noted in the first discussion, articles exist on comparable christian topics. That said, the article seems to need some work to better establish notability. bfigura (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bfigura's reasons above; call me crazy but the recent AfDs on various Islamic sermons smacks of WP:Point.... Zidel333 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bfigura and zide. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs reworking y somebody more knowledgable.--Martin Wisse 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rework. the current analysis section is still undocumented, and it needs some some usable citations to accessible commentaries. I'm very glad this was brought here. Obviously all Qur'an verses are individually encyclopedic, just as with the NT and OT. 13 centuries of commentary is enough. Whether the individual hadith are is something I'm not certain about. some of those currently on PROD seem noteworthy enough to be articles from their historic or contemporary relevance. DGG (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources mentioned by Josiah Rowe have not been added to the article. Sandstein 05:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics

edit
William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Singularity 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cavaleri

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

Non-notable guy that gets up and cheers at basketball games. As it stands, the one reference refers to a user comment to a news story about something else. The two external links are photo galleries. Nothing I'm turning up from google meets WP:RS. -- Ben 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons at Holmdel

edit
Commons at Holmdel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy article on a strip mall, has been tagged for cleanup since March with no improvement. Mall fails WP:RS and WP:N. Possible speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wub "?!" 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Bellevue

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

Spammy article on a non-notable shopping mall in Washington state. Contains five links to the official website, so it's possibly spam. Even if the spam were to be cleaned up, there still wouldn't be anything notable about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources given are all trivial mentions of the organization with a single sentence or are press releases. We can have an article about this when we have non-trivial independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy

edit
BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 330 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to ascertain the relationship of either source with WP:RS. The second ref (German language) appears to be a press release. In any case, these would appear to be rather niche references. Deiz talk 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no evidence these satisfy WP:RS. The relevant section of the first reference includes a mission statement and general blurb about what companies in this sector should aspire to do, rather than any independent discussion or coverage of the organisation itself. The second appears to be a press release. Neither appears to satisfy either the spirit or wording of the relevant guidelines. Neither reference is used in the article. The COI is not given as a reason to delete, rather an indicator that the article was not created by an independent editor who saw a need for this topic to be covered. So, with huge respect DGG, keep on what grounds? Deiz talk 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I should have said more. Keep on the basis of its status as one of the 6 UNEP Global Environmental Centres [32]. I think this would also apply to the article above. The Centres are each a separate program, with nothing really in common except being jointly sponsored by the UNEP and some other body, but I suppose they could be merged anyway. DGG (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Youth

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

Non-notable group as far as my sampling of Google is concerned, with 1820 ghits, Wikipedia being the third entry and Myspace being the second (not a good sign). Looks like a POV piece, talks like a POV piece, etc., etc. Delete. Kurykh 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think what has been missed here is that Bolivarian Youth is simply a section of Bolivarian Circles, which are very notable in Latin America and have affiliates in many cities in North America, as well as all around the world. POV can be fixed, Wiki is not paper. --Mista-X 09:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alotian Club

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

Seems to be a non-notable club; only assertion of notability is the relation with Tom Fazio. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit more research - seems to have loads of brushes with notability; the designer is notable, the founder's father is notable, and several very notable players have given clinics there (Phil Mickelson [36] and Tiger Woods [37]). It has also been included on a number of lists by notable publications, including Golf Digest [38] and golf.com [39]. So now the question is, is this all enough? Sure the designer is notable, but his company has designed dozens of courses, and he doesn't pass his notability on to the course. Sure, notable players have given clinics there, but thats a pretty common event, especially in the weeks preceding and following a major tournament. And sure they have been included on lists, but they have all been lists of "up and coming" courses - rather then established leaders. I would be inclined to !vote keep if this course had hosted a professional event, was in the list of top 100 private golf courses, or even topped the list of courses in Arkansas. As it is, its just another celebrity designed golf course with no special characteristics. Weak Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel→♦ 05:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Wendlandt

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

Yet another non-notable person. failing WP:BIO pppswing 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the db-bio tag. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell Talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsford Plaza

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

Has been tagged for cleanup since October. Only sources are official website and another wiki, so it fails WP:RS too. Just a strip mall, no notability asserted whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is small, with no real information that is "notable" and that has been the case since october. Frankly, im sure i could find "notable" things about the place, but i dont really mind the deletion right now. if i ever find the need to, i can later. im assuming you do this a lot and know what youre doing, so i wont argue. have a swell day. Evaunit666 03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another non-notable shopping center. CitiCat ♫ 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't appear to be any features to this mall to raise it to a notable status. --Stormbay 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete view - notability requires multiple, independent sources attesting that there is something special or different about this mall (i.e. notable) or that something newsworthy happened here. This article has none of these. Simply existing or being a large mall is not enough. Bridgeplayer 04:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS, and WP:N. Another non notable mall strip mall. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Added ref showing it is a regional mall with 513,389 square feet of gross leasable area, so it is more notable than a strip mall, which is more of a neighborhood shopping attraction. Google News has 208 entries (most requiring several dollars to view the details) most of which are humdrum day to day activities. There is substantial coverage at [40] , One of the ripoff subscription stories which looks like significant coverage is "Syracuse Herald-American (Newspaper) - January 29, 1967, Syracuse,... Jan 29, 1967. Pittsford Plaza, developed by Wilmor- ite, Inc., is huge and has many attractive stores, but is two or possibly Three miles outside the Village on Monroe ..." and then there is "Daily Messenger, The (Newspaper) - January 24, 1968, Canandaigua, New...The Pittsford Plaza Draws from an area 15 to 20 miles away. The purposed Plaza is expected to serve a live-county (perhaps they meant five county)area. ..." Edison 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quintard Mall

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

Non-notable mall. Has been tagged as {{local}} for ages with no improvement whatsoever. Fails WP:RS with a dose of WP:OR thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been no improvement to the article and this mall seems non-notable. --Stormbay 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete view - notability requires multiple, independent sources attesting that there is something special or different about this mall (i.e. notable) or that something newsworthy happened here. This article has none of these. Simply existing or being a large mall is not enough. Bridgeplayer 04:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regional mall's size close to the cutoff for super-regional. Googe News Archive shows 685 mentions in news coverage, most of them humdrum, and most viewable only by paying several dollars. Those whose snip views seem to show substantial coverage include: "PCB-SOAKED SOIL FOUND AT MALL SITE OFFICIALS BELIEVE ALL HAZARDOUS...- Birmingham News - LexisNexis - Jul 20, 1999. the company has been helping with the Quintard MALL cleanup after the contamination was discovered in late January or early February. ..." , "Soil from Quintard Mall should undergo PCB test.- Anniston Star - NewsBank - Jul 30, 2000 at that point, ADEM asked Quintard Mall owner Park Grimmer and Solutia officials to provide ADEM with A list of everyone who had received Soil from the ... " , "Quintard Mall boom surpasses predictions-Anniston Star - NewsBank - May 19, 2001 it is at the Gadsden Mall that the opening of the new Quintard Mall has had the ... the Quintard Mall has stores the Gadsden Mall doesn't, Stambaugh said. ..." , "Dillard's to anchor mall expansion-- Anniston Star - NewsBank - Jan 8, 1999 that growth would leapfrog Quintard mall from Alabama's 30th largest shopping center to the state's 14th largest, according to figures from the ..." , "Mall rushes to be ready by Nov. 2- - Anniston Star - NewsBank - Aug 24, 2000 Even though the new addition to the Quintard Mall may look like a disaster area now, officials say the ... Businesses scheduled for Quintard Mall as of Nov. ... " , "Quintard Mall shoppers to see changes in 2006- Anniston Star - NewsBank - Jul 28, 2005 at the time of that announcement, Cleghorn said the Quintard Mall would remain competitive by attracting well-known retailers such as Gap, American Eagle ...", "New look for mall means more for all- - Anniston Star - NewsBank - Nov 3, 2000 By 2 pm on Thursday, Randy Atkins, manager of Chick-fil-A at the Quintard mall, could hardly believe his cash register. Thanks to the steady rush of ...", "Mall walkers- Anniston Star - NewsBank - Jun 9, 2005OXFORD – Like a museum after hours, the cavernous Quintard Mall is quiet except ... at 57, Dale O'Dell is one of the Quintard Mall walkers' spring chickens. ..." , "Accident brings fountain to mall- Anniston Star - NewsBank - May 20, 1999 A 75-foot geyser sprang from Quintard mall on Wednesday, but it wasn't a new fountain at the mall's current addition. Instead, the sudden spring resulted ... ", "31 new stores open today at Quintard Mall-Anniston Star - NewsBank - Nov 2, 2000 The new Quintard Mall expansion opens today, just in time for The busy, busy buying-fest known as Christmas. Area shoppers will get The chance to peruse any ...", Baptist Press Young girls protest push-up bras on display at Victoria's Secret at the mall. Edison 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes it exists and things happen around it. Still that's not enough.--Svetovid 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Mall

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

Yet another non-notable shopping mall. This page has stayed mostly the same since its inception, with no sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm seeing lots there that are in South Bend. The local paper alone has 36 mentions, which is more than enough to pass notability guidelines and enough fodder to add reliable sources to the article. Other reliable sources include this and this. The Canadian mall likely has a disproportionate # of hits because I used google.ca rather than google.com. It seems to boil down to a preference of deletionism over inclusionism.bobanny 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The South Bend paper refs seem to be pretty much "passing reference" or incidental mentions. Not seeing any real evidence of notability to satisfy WP:ORG or even the rejected subject specific guideline WP:MALL. Edison 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there’s no Time Magazine cover stories, but that doesn’t mean the coverage is trivial. There’s clear evidence of notability and substantial local notability, despite the lack of dedicated articles on the subject (which aren’t required anyway: “Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive”). Scottsdale Mall failed, and now the site has been redeveloped as half of a jumbo 900,000 sq. ft. open-air mall development that’s revitalized the retail sector in the area; the economic impact is substantial and apparent. Granted, it would be better to move the article to Erskine Village, and it needs a lot of other work, but there’s definite potential for a legit encyclopedia article here. Here’s an article dedicated to the development of the Scottsdale Mall site. Seems odd to cite a proposal that’s been rejected (WP:MALL) to make claims about notability. Glancing at its talk page, it appears this is part of a larger effort to knock off shopping mall articles. bobanny 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • More like an effort to keep the more notable ones, remove the less notable ones, and find metrics to delineate the difference. Edison 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't trying to imply sinister intentions, just make the process more transparent. There's no hard consensus about notability for malls and, as you indicate, this and many other AfD's are part of trying to build some sort of consensus. People should know that their vote here has implications on Wikipedia guidelines, not just whether or not this one article gets whacked. Lots of editors have expressed concern that the AfD process is skewed towards deletion, and when things like WP:MALL are evoked, with completely arbitrary criteria like 800k sq. ft. minimum for mall articles, those concerns appear to be justified, making transparency all the more important. bobanny 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment 800,000 square feet is not "completely arbitrary" since it is used in the ISCA definition (see Shopping mall) of a "super-regional" shopping center (in the U.S.). It was not just pulled out of a hat by an editor. The question then is whether being a "super-regional" center gives some presumption of notability, like having played on a professional baseball team does. This by no means requires deletion of regional malls (over 400,000 square feet) or even of smaller ones, but the AFD process seems to be showing that the smaller they are, the more they need to have something else going to show their notability, both because they are important to a smaller and smaller geographic dispersion of shoppers, and because the sheer number of them out there gets larger and larger. There are in the US hundreds of superregional malls and tens of thousands down to the very small ones. There are some inclusionist editors who claim in good faith that all malls (roads, cartoon characters, TV show episodes, local schools, victims, survivors, etc) are notable, and that if verifiable deserve an article, so that Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia: "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Others, more deletionist, in good faith say that even some lesser verifiable entities should have therir articles deleted or merged to avoid Wikipedia being "an indiscriminate collection of information or a trivia collection". This important AFD process is where that crucial balance is struck, every hour of every day. Edison 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. Size may be a variable determining notability in many cases, but the reason why I said 800K was arbitrary is because the significance of size varies with the size of the population. South Bend only has about a 100,000 people, so a mall much smaller than that figure may be massively significant there, whereas an 800,000 square foot mall might be barely notable in a place like LA if there's nothing special about it otherwise. In some places, there's a lot of opposition and lively political campaigns when a big box-store development is proposed because of it's impact on the local economy and culture, whereas I doubt another Wal-Mart in Dallas would even make the evening news. bobanny 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anything in this article which is informative in the (yet to be written) Erskine Village article can certainly be shortened and merged to it, without a lengthy history of the failed predecessor mall having its own article. By comparison Disneyland has an article and is notable, but that does not mean we have to have an article about the farms that were there before the amusement park was built. Or if a cathedral is built on the site of a predecessor church or pagan tample, that site history can be briefly mentioned in the article on the later, more notable subject. Edison 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any Wikipedia article that wouldn't be greatly improved with historical information if it's not already present (see WP:HIST). In this case, it appears from the sources that the significance (notability) of this mall largely derives from its failure as the Scottdale Mall and it conversion to an outdoor format as the Erskine Village; it's not just because people like shopping at Target. Obviously this is a phenomenon that others have found noteworthy and isn't limited to Indiana. (Although, it looks like still others find it trivial given that List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format is up for deletion now too). If you're proposing to delete this and create one for Erskine Village, it amounts to the same as what I suggested above by moving this to that name, except with the extra step of having an admin delete this, when it would probably be re-created as a re-direct eventually anyway. bobanny 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway at the Beach

edit
Broadway at the Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammish article on non-notable shopping mall, consists mainly of a listing of stores in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, a foundation-level policy. The article has no independent reliable sources, and indeed none seem to be available immediately through Google. Also, the "tribunal"'s website, not a reliable source in any case, is dead. This means we can't have an article on this subject until appropriate sources turn up. I will provide the deleted content for recreation in that case. Sandstein 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan

edit
International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged since March without any discernible input since then. I am not sure where exactly it falls in terms of attaching WP:Notability criteria though I suspect it falls in Non-commercial organizations. On the face of it it falls foul in that the depth of coverage is not substantial and multiple independent sources have not been (nor looking at ghits can they be) cited to establish notability (particularly having regard to requirement that trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability). There is also the rebuttable presumption of notability as it is an international organization however its coverage is still niche and thus falls down in teh second limb of that criterion, namely information cannot be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. Listed here to get a wider view on suggested deletion Dick G 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article says, it is a mock trial with no jurisdiction. I fail to see any historic notability for this attempt per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + comment The trial itself doesn't seem notable however a line says:

*Special Advisor - Ramsey Clark（International Action Center, US） Perhaps a single sentence mention of Clark's involvement in the mock trial could be mentioned in his article if this is true and can be sourced.

  • Weak keep if only so that we may distinguish it from legitimate and duly seated international tribunals. This received a smattering of attention at the time it was held, most of it from, ahem, fellow travelers with sympathetic views but also some from critics, so a reasonable article could be constructed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what Dhartung said. A subject like this needs Wikipedia to have a factual, neutral account of it available, as most other mentions of it will be quite likely partisan or attempting to muddy waters.--Martin Wisse 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Ancestry of Jatt Names

edit
Common Ancestry of Jatt Names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article makes unproven claims that there is some connection between Jat surnames and those of Nordic and Germanic peoples based solely on surface similarities in sound - there is no valid linguistic or scientific basis for its claims and it seems to be promoting some kind of racist agenda John Hill 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless article can be re-calibrated in a more neutral tone along the lines of Ancestry theories of Jatt names or something similar. I am not an expert in DNA ancestry nor the evolution of surnames throughout population migration however that does not seem to be the issue. The article is prima facie OR and the editors should have responded to the neutrality tag by the addition of solid 3rd party sources - offering both sides of the debate - and a seismic shift in the article's tone. Without that it's not a useful resource. As a comment, the discussion in the article's Talk page is barely civil and as a result is damaging to the credibility of article's main proponent Dick G 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wub "?!" 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS PT-337

edit
USS PT-337 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without addressing required improvements to this unreferenced essay that fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Made a minor edit but subsequently also found this and this which whilst not irrefutbale third party sources, nevertheless give facts for when vessel laid down &c. and co-ordinates of engagement (respectively). Also, this doesn't get through my firewall but may be useful tooDick G 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this is verified, Delete otherwise. Per my attempts, I could not verify even the existence, let alone the sinking. Not policy, but I'd say WW2 vessels that saw combat are notable and is something you'd find in any encyclopedia (WP:5) Corpx 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the few PT losses during WWII. I added two new links to the article that verify the boat's existence and its loss at Hansa Bay by shore gunfire. However, I could not find any evidence of the rest of the article, but I suspect a WWII expert would have access to RS to add the needed references. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, essentials easily verified on this page. The after action report should be blockquoted or whatever is usually done, but we have many ship articles that take their text directly from the US Navy website (being public domain). --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general, commissioned vessels of any navy are considered notable; however, PT boats were commissioned by squadron, not by individual boats, and so fail this test. I don't think that individual PT boats should appear as a rule (they were regarded as similar in status to airplanes), but I believe this one is notable per Storm Rider. Many naval vessel histories have originated as copies from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (no entry there yet, unfortunately) or from Dhartung's history.navy.mil reference. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People seem to like US and British ships, and have often argued successfully to keep every article, but where is the guideline that says every ship that was ever comissioned is notable? Seems like there should be a minimum size cutoff. Edison 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • nom Voting Delete once you remove the unreferenced (unreferancable?) essay there is nothing beyond The USS PT-337 was a PT-103 Class Motor Torpedo Boat sunk in action during the Pacific Theater of World War II in Hansa Bay, New Guinea on March 7, 1944. Which would seem to fail WP:NOT as well WP:N Jeepday (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the now-removed 'essay' is, given the detail (eye-witness account), likely taken from the 'action report' which will be available from USN records for a small fee. The link to that site is here (follow the link titled Sources of ship documents) and albeit indirectly is one of the references cited in the article. The 'essay' contains detail that wouldn't seem to warrant fabrication - not least because it doesn't make heroes of or sentationalise its subjects. I have not seen the actual report (nor am I personally going to go to the trouble of ordering it) but it is a publicly available document. Finally I wouldn't say this makes the craft 'notable' within all criteria but care should be taken when dismissing 'unreferenced' content, though I accpet the 'burden of proof' is on the original WP author to post his/her sources Dick G 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deleted content is not verified, if you beleive it is verifiable please do. It has been suggested that the content May Be sourced from US Goverment records, it is also equally possible that it May Be a complete fabrication or original research both of which are discouraged in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've touched on a fundamental problem with Wikipedia in regards to sources that are books or hardcopy documents that have no urls. Like Dick G said, somebody needs to check the The National Archives (or similar research source) to confirm accuracy. A vast majority of pre-internet age documentation is not accessible through weblinks. Quite sad that the content of the Dick in a Box article is immediately verifiable and the deleted content about this World War II naval vessel isn't. We've got problems, kids. --Oakshade 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting off topic here, but... That is why it is important to list references when you add the content. When someone is working a clean up project like Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles or looking references, if there are no references found and none listed, there is no way to tell if the content is pure fiction or not. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to assume bad faith of the original author. It's not like someone is going to profit off the content (I suppose one can argue some WWII vet might make up material to impress his girlfriend). Again, per Dick G, the content of the deleted material appears verifiable. --Oakshade 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Carlossuarez46 per CSD A7. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Smith

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

Article does not assert notability. Autobiography. pppswing 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Adams (engineer)

edit
Nate Adams (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. A search of google yields a couple of hits for people with the same name. There is no mention of his band. ~ Infrangible 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Langill

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

Backup minor-league catcher, no other claims of notabilty, fails baseball wikiproject guideline, likely won't reach majors, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of couples

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

Non-encyclopedic list, nonmaintainable. There are hundreds of thousands of couples of celebs `'Míkka 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imad Mugniyah — Caknuck 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faud Mugniyah

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

fails notability. Was the brother of a better known Hezbollah member, killed in a car bomb. Almost no mention of him in external sources other than wikipedia and its mirrors Isarig 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was WP:SNOW delete—reasons outlined below by numerous editors (and a unanimous agreement to delete so far), clearly showing that there is no need to leave this open. — Deckiller 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration village

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

Nonexistent, fan-created village from the Naruto series. Aside from the fact that most of the names in the article are not Japanese in origin (Travis?), the article notes that the village only exists in "the possible 3rd Naruto season". CSD tag was removed since it isn't a person, group, or so on, and PROD was removed for the reason that an AFD would be a better medium. Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), etc. ~SnapperTo 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, article needs expanding on her other social activities rather than merely focuses on the resignation incident. @pple 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Almontaser

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

There is a news article about this person, but I do not think that she is notable. Bringing to AfD rather than db-bio because of the third party publication. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Wrong Venue Move to Redirects for Deletion, Non-Admin Closure. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophobic

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

No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DurinsBane87 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)

edit

The article asserts no notability, and has no real world sources to discuss it; as such, it is just a repetition of the plot of several Harry Potter books, and since the plot of those books is covered in their own articles, this article is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently just arguing now for the sake of arguing. The 925 Google News hits I just mentioned obviously are the real world context, and the fact that the Order of the Phoenix is in the title of the book and film is precisely why it's notable. Finally, WP:FICT is not policy and therefore invoking it in an AfD process is not criteria for deletion. wikipediatrix 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown that the book and the film are notable, not the organization. notability is not inherited. You need sources about the organization, not about the book and the film. Being a guideline does not mean you can ignore WP:FICT for no reason, WP:ONLYESSAY. Jay32183 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Should we delete S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from James Bond too? SolidPlaid 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to that question could very well be "yes", which is why other stuff exists is considered a bad argument. Jay32183 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Okay, let's delete Number since a number is only an abstract idea that occurs in some books. SolidPlaid 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More importantly, WP:WAX is, once again, not policy. wikipediatrix 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't have to be policy for you to be wrong. I am not saying that's what it says so obey, I'm saying that "What about X?" is a bad argument and you can read that essay for details, which is what WP:ONLYESSAY says. Actually try reading these guidelines and essays before rejecting them if you wish to contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner. Notability has not been demonstrated. Another essay you should read is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because simply saying something is notable doesn't make it true, provide the sources. The sources don't exist, so you're kinda stuck. Jay32183 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please do not accuse other editors of doing that again without considerably stronger evidence that they've committed such a glaring mistake. In fact, please don't do so with the same. It's not particularily constructive in either case. --Kizor 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is always constructive to ask users not to make bad arguments. Bad arguments get in the way of discussion. Instead of discussing the actual issue we have to explain why the argument is bad. In this specific case, I had linked to WP:ONLYESSAY, which was met with "That's not policy." WP:ONLYESSAY explains why saying something "isn't policy" isn't a good argument. I don't see how I could have done anything wrong or even impolite. Jay32183 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reply to a few of the threads above, I agree the guidelines go against keeping the article. But they do say that there are exceptions, and maybe this should be one of them. The Order of the Phoenix gives its name to a major movie and one of the best selling books of all time. Its also mentioned in many reviews, including a Time magazine review of the last Harry Potter book (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1645771,00.html, fourth paragraph down) It seems to me to be a reasonable canidate for an exception, though it does need heavy editing. It could also be merged into one of the other Potter pages.--Gyrcompass 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we don't have real world sources about the organization. The guideline WP:FICT is derived from the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. Articles are not supposed to be dominated by fictional elements. Because of WP:NOR and WP:V we must have sources to provide the real world content. Simply mentioning something isn't a sufficient source, and having multiple sources is meaningless if they all say the same thing. There's no point in merging if the content here is already at the target article, and there's no point in a redirect because searching for "Order of the Phoenix" will take you to the right place anyway, no one would add (organization) or (organisation) unless they know the subpage is there. Jay32183 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT says to use deletion only as a last resort. Although the it-has-no-notability-in-the-real-world arguments are very convincing, I'd still say Ignore all rules for this article which happens to be the book title of one of the most selling books of all time and in-universe-notably spans several books. This article would be a perfect candidate for the planned {{In-universe rationale}} template that's currently planned on WP:FICT. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a slight problem with your "use deletion as a last resort" argument. Where are you proposing the content be merged, the main articles already have the necessary information. When the merge option fails you're supposed to keep going down the list, not back up. Next is transwiki, and again, the question is "where?". Jay32183 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FICT states an article on a fictional topic must "contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources." - the topic of this article has no real world notability. Since this fictional organisation plays a large role in the clearly notable book Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix any information on it should be included in that article. [[Guest9999 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Strong Keep; this one has a good deal of content that cannot be added anywhere else. =David(talk)(contribs) 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional organization with reliable sources easily available and does not fail any policies. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are these reliable sources that have significant coverage about the organization? The Google News search only showed articles about the book and the film, not the organization. Jay32183 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Way to much excessive plot detail, moreso than is necessary for basic understanding of the parent topics. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep, It can be edited down, however it is a very NOTABLE, in the HP universe, and the information can not be added elsewhere. It should have its own page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko2007 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Being very notable in the Harry Potter world does not mean a topic meets notability criteria. Real world notability (significant coverage by multiple rleiable independent secondary sources) is required as described in WP:NN, WP:WAF and WP:FICT/ [[Guest9999 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Well, my vote was still keep, and I really don't care what you think 9999, at all. As many people have argued WP:FICT says deletion is only a last resort. You're just taking a "nazi" point of view, anything you don't like you get rid of! ** ko2007 ** 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, this sort of comment is rather unhelpful. I still sort of think we should keep it under the Ignore All Rules rationale, because it's such a big part of the Harry Potter books. The article does need heavy editing though. Then again, the article is a huge wreck, and will take a ton of effort to fix. Especially with fans wanting to throw in every bit of trivia possible. Delete.--Gyrcompass 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I DID NOT call you a "Nazi" I said that you were taking a "Nazi" POV. There IS a difference! ** ko2007 ** 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion is a last resort" is not an argument for keeping. The order is keep, merge, transwiki, delete. The article fails the inclusion criteria, so "keep" is out. "Merge" creates too much of a burden on the main page, so we cross that out. With "transwiki", you'll need to say where to transwiki it, and that place would have to accept it. They may not if they feel what they already have is better. So we are, in fact, down to "delete". Jay32183 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was transwikied, it would probably go here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix but I don't see any reason they'd want it.--Gyrcompass 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best transwiki target, but I think their current article is better than ours, even by fan site standards. Jay32183 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Guest9999, I apologize for using the term "Nazi", it was inappropriate. But it does seem that you have been taking a POV that would suggest that you do not like Harry Potter. Please correct me if I am wrong. ** ko2007 ** 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for Guest, but as one of the people who'd rather see this article merged I can say that I love the series. Liking Harry Potter or not really doesn't change most of the arguments presented here, for both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Alasdair - Very important part of the Harry Potter universe, and useful listing when searching for information on said universe. Ramskjell 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So we now have a new piece of essay that binds us to essays and guidelines without good reason to do otherwise, with 'good reason' left up to individual discretion, meaning it's what that individual considers to be convincing... Please excuse me I exceed my ambient background level of cynicism about this matter. It's argued above that we shouldn't keep from following WP:FICT to the letter - apply that bit of common sense that guidelines definitionally encourage - for "no reason." I argue that being a central concept in the biggest book series in all of time is very much a reason. (This particular revision of FICT is also contentious and sparked a revision effort. Its author intended it to be a tool for retaining information but found it used too easily for deleting it.)
    Another reason to retain the article is that it leaves the decision up to the experts. The Harry Potter Wikiproject has an ongoing project to determine the breadth and form of its coverage - and (alas) not even close to a kneejerk "keep everything" decision. It's the most suited party to evaluate the main issue of what, how and where should be said about this subject. --Kizor 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, it is supposed to be easy to delete articles that consist only of plot summary. Common sense actually dictates that this article should be deleted, because there are no real world sources. Jay32183 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT is just meant to show how WP:NN can be applied to articles on fiction. WP:NN requires evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - no evidence of which have been shown in this discussion. I agree the information should be available on the internet for those who want to use it but I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_17&oldid=1081098543"