Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge into Lil Jon. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk!!!

Article does not assert notability, and appears to be to exist solely to promote a product. WLU (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lil' Jon The drink itself is possibly only notable for the fact that it is promoted by a rapper, we could easily incorporate this into his page similar to Ian Thorpe's energy drink "Thorpedo". -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as something of a notable energy drink in some American markets. Failing that, merge into Lil' Jon. y'amer'can (wtf?) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lil' Jon - The drink is not notable enough to require an article apart from its creator. Gromlakh (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports car manufacturers

could be the first of a proliferation of arbitrary automotive lists, if the chief proponent has his way Andy Christ (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unhelpful list. Created (by me) when cleaning up the sports car article, since the list was popular in the sense that it was oft contributed to, but I was hoping this discussion would come along. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only reason Andy Christ has nominated this list for deletion is that it does not include some of the "famous" manufacturers of sports cars because they have other activities and products. As can be seen in the edit history, the contributions by numerous editors have pared this list down to only the "companies that build (or built) only sports cars". They keep the list clean by removing non-specialist brands and the mainstream automakers.
It is entirely speculative to describe that this list would give rise to "a proliferation of arbitrary automotive lists". Yes, I suggested to Andy Christ that this is a list of sports car manufacturers and to establish a new list of sports car makers that also make sedans, grand tourers, sport utility vehicles, and/or trucks, as well as having other business activities almost as a jest because he does not like that "popular" brands are not included in this one. Yet, it is quite evident that the efforts by a number of editors has limited the potential to expand this list. Its purpose is not to include every manufacturer that has ever produced a sports-type high-performance vehicles.
The purpose of this list is to compile those enterprises that are (or were) developers and manufacturers of sports cars and as such, it should be helpful. It thus differentiates companies that devote efforts to sports cars, from those that serve other market segments or offer more popular designs or mass-market models -- that often produce more steady revenues. If this information is not helpful, then I agree -- delete this list! — CZmarlin (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't defined your criteria for inclusion or exclusion, except by including or excluding. What set of features differentiates a GT from a sports car? And how long must a company have made nothing but sports cars to be a sports car company? Clearly you have some personal definition for this list, but neither you nor any of the other active editors of this article have seen fit to share it with the rest of us. And who exactly are you helping? My first instinct is Delete, but I could also support expanding it and better-defining it, or merging it into a list of sports cars and better defining it as a section. Andy Christ (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it seems you were the one who decided how to limit this list, so it really does fall upon you to explain how and why. Andy Christ (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting at this point that Project Automobiles is currently discussing the various car classification articles to try to address the issue of definitions. It might be premature to define "sports car manufacturer" in isolation. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in principle, this list seems extremely useful and appropriate as a navigational aid. It may be that some names are inappropriate or missing, but I see that as a reason to improve the list, not as a reason to delete the whole list. - Neparis (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: Could this not be better done as a category, rather than an article? Then the navigational aid element would still be there. 82.27.192.151 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It could, but I see categories and lists as complementary navigational tools, and I think it is often very useful to have both a list and a category representing the same set of articles. I find well-constructed lists slightly quicker and easier to use than navigating categories. - Neparis (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are not disencouraged on WP; they can do much more than categories. If there is adjustment needed, the people involved can do it. DGG (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect per Exxolon, non-admin closure. Since the article was a substub there's no harm in this if everyone agrees it should be redirected - and a full article on this can be written if necessary by modifying the redirect.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep it off Records

Record label created and run by a notable band. No sources, was a speedy which I removed, but putting it to AfD for consensus instead. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Less Than Jake - If the band itself is notable and the record label isn't, I think we should redirect the page to "Less Than Jake". However, the title isn't properly named, so perhaps there should be another redirect page named "Sleep It Off Records" (as "it" and "off" are significant words in titling). — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and Redirect to Less Than Jake - which was what I'd already done. AFDing an article this small with only a few edits which can easily be redirected to a main article is a complete waste of everyone's time. Exxolon (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)

No references, failed speedy delete. Possibly non notable. Needs attention or deletion. CM (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I've added a ref in the article which should hold it up for now while there are no experts in Iraqi and Iranian history to expand it a bit more. I want to edit the article more but I don't like the nom's "on-demand cleanup" reasons (Needs attention or deletion). I won't be a tool for such a behavior. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't know you and had no intention of manipulating you or anybody else. Either the article improves or it should be deleted. Better to have no article than an unsourced article. CM (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- ~~In agreement with the previous comment.~~ (I'm in agreement in substance, but not in tone, that's a better way of putting it). AfD is not the place to go for article improvement, and I'm not sure how this would be non-notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- looks like a major offensive; seems pretty notable. I agree that it needs referencing, though: Google Books shows some books that might be useful, but none of them have full enough previews online. Still, it seems clear that sources are available to someone willing to look. —Salmar ^(talk) 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly a major operation in a major war, and so there shouldn't be any issue of notability at all. The article needs citations, but books have been written about the war, so the argument can't be made the the problem with citations is irremediable. I cannot find a plausible argument for deletion. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Delete. Then recreate with sources in it. The article has been created by a user who has close relations to sockpuppets and vandals in the past and is still haunted by it. He once tried to fake his very own RfA. Check it out and you'll find I'm right. Yoshaibo (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an article was created by a user who you happen to find questionable is hardly a valid deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Why exactly should this article be deleted? First of all no sources is not a reason to delete an article, and seconldy and most importantly, you see sources at the bottom of the page. Plus this was a major battle that was of importance in a major war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Absolutely no reason to delete this article. It is well written and provides excellent information on the subject. It's tone is fairly neutral and shows nobodies point of few except for the neutral writers of it's online-sources. But I see there is nothing to worry; the majority of people here agrees with me and wants to keep it. Cheers! Ramtashaniku (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep it looks like an Himalayan avalanche. CM (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmanical See

This article appears to be a hoax. It has existed for several years, heavily vandalized, with no reliable sources added, with trolls attempting to throw in unreliable sources to keep it up. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is truly a hoax, it would be Wikipedia's longest-existing known hoax of all time - longer than any of these by about a year. I'll investigate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Google isn't turning up much outside of Wikipedia mirrors, things like Books and Scholar don't either. I'll be willing to change my mind should references be provided to verify this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The stability of the hoax text over its life history is quite remarkable. rudra (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:HOAX. All i'm getting is entries from the millions of Wikipedia mirror sites and entries for "Brahmanical. See" or "Brahmanical, See". Doc Strange (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:HOAX, WP:NOR, etc. etc.) Zenwhat has beaten me to this. I posted some background to the Fringe Theories board, intending to wait a few days before filing the AfD. Stepping back though, in a way it's quite amusing. rudra (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball per all unless new information comes to light. I love how it tries to evade WP:N by saying that the term "has fallen into disuse." --Thin boy 00 @063, i.e. 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, classic. rudra (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Who had the honor (?) before this article? Paragon12321 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, though an impressive one. ~ priyanath talk 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this a joke?Baka man 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page should definitely be thoroughly checked. (+OMG! Zenwhat being useful) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Reasonable consensus has formed that the article should not be deleted - however a merge has been suggested. That is not strictly part of AFD so I will leave it to other editors to form a consensus elsewhere on if a merge is appropriate. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing Middle School (San Diego)

Delete nn middle school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Where is the significant coverage in Reliable sources to make it WP:N? non-existing, hence nn. Notability showing in the burden of the article's proponents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, I recognize the names of science fiction author Greg Bear and actress Annette Benning, both of whom grew up in San Diego; what's "nn" about this school, exactly? Mandsford (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Multiple notable alumni, rather unusual for a middle school. Article would benefit greatly from expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple notable alumni alone demonstrates it passes the proposed WP:SCL. The nom has given no reasoning as to why this school is "nn". --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new guideline proposal is just that. In the discussions there appears to be support for alumni if that notability traces back to the institution. In the cases here it does not appear to do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:School, which is a proposed guideline, so don't remind me of that in a follow-up comment please. I am consolidating my rationale for my keep !vote as saying I agree with the proposed guideline. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - school is significant institution in its locality and has several notable alumni. TerriersFan (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Diego City Schools where the note about the alumni can be included. Articles do not benefit from being "expanded, not deleted" where substantial, intellectually independent secondary sources do not exist [1]. Longer != better. Wikipedia doesn't exist to repeat what every little organisation says about themselves on their own website. (And the Mission Times-Courier is definitely not an intellectually independent secondary source for schools in their own area --- see comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoebe Hearst Elementary School - Del Cerro, San Diego). cab (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Tao

Delete unsourced article about nn comic strip Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Interested editors may pursue a merge or redirect editorially on the articles talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 17

The article dose not do a good job of explaining the subject and would be better served as a description inside List_of_Earthlings_in_Dragon_Ball rather than it's own article. Ke5crz (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball It needs more linking and probably references as well. Lady Galaxy 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lady Galaxy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I second that notion. Either improve the article, merge it, or wipe it out. --Wattzking (Contact • Contributions) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I also agree. Earth bending master 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inappropriate reason for deletion/. We do not delete articles because they do a poor job of it, we improve them. If we started deleting poor quality articles.... DGG (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not deleting it, we're stating to merge it. None of us said to delete it. Lady Galaxy 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Do not merge "Earthlings in Dragonball" does not have secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context either, so merging doesn't solve any problems it just delays the solutions. Jay32183 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in regards to merge or deletion, I don't really care as long as the article is gone, right? It probably fails WP:NN now that you mention it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, this should be renamed as "No. 17" is a wholly inappropriate name. Perhaps Android 17 (Dragonball) or something. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a BIG discussion about that at WP:WPDB. It pretty much ended as "No. 17" being the article name. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Artificial Human #17. I'd also mention that No. 18 should be included in this AfD, as it's basically the same thing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entire content already present at List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball#Artificial Human #17. Pastordavid (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did you even read DGG's concern? The person was told that we weren't considering deletion. If the page gets merged, the history will still be available. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? There is not much of a difference between deletion and merging for me. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Trinity

Non-notable fictional group/comic/game - there's no reliable sources that show the notability of any of these. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, no sources available. User:Dorftrottel 10:06, January 22, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Delta

This article is a splendid example of peacock writing: "...the state of Texas held its breath ... the stunned crowd sat in awe..." etc; that could be put right, but is this student club notable? All the references are to their own website, as is the one I found on Google (among many Iota Deltas at other universities). JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Delta is not at other university. It is a chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Inc at the University of Texas at Austin. There are a number of references that are not from the chapter's site; rather, those citations link to the fraternity's homepage as does the Kappa Alpha Psi wikipedia entry. Furthermore, this organization is not merely a club. It is a chartered chapter of an international fraternity as cited on the Fraternity's international website (reference 2). The beginning of the article may be a bit biased but the page is factual and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantDeath (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and the first two sentences of InstantDeath's comment. Individual chapters of national fraternities are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing extraordinary about this particular chapter of a fraternity -- Whpq (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alkonost (band)

Delete nn band article sourced to the band's webpage and Myspace; no third party RSes indicating that it meets WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one was tricky. Although they have several albums out, Google doesn't bring up any significant media or news outlet coverage on them. Lady Galaxy 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7, G7), by Nakon, Qwghlm and Islander. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Healy: Singer Songwriter

Article claims just enough notability to potentially get past A7, but this subject is not notable enough for an entry. The one reference (IMDB) shows only one small time acting gig, and "Daniel Healy" + singer on Google reveals less than 400 hits. Gromlakh (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted A7 (three times). JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the consensus here is that without violating the policies which state that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a place to publish original research, not enough information can be given on this book at present. If anyone wants a copy of this restored to their user space (as User:Swirlex suggested) to work on until sources are available and it can be restored to the mainspace without falling afoot of these policies, I'll be happy to do this, so let me know on my talk page. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The War of the Ember

Assuming the information on the page (and page Guardians of Ga'Hoole is correct, there is no verifiable information about this book at this time. No release date, no plot; nothing other than a mention of the title by the author. Per WP:CRYSTAL, there's no need for it to have a page right now. Gromlakh (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not remove this page, it does give the infromation that the 15th book may not be called Guardians of Ga'Hoole: The War of the Ember, and there is a chance it will be called so, but in that time, the page will grow longer and with more information. Thank you androo123
Delete unless there are more sources than these out there; at the moment it seems that nothing verifiable that can be said about the book other than its title, and that's already covered in Guardians of Ga'Hoole. The rest of the article is just vague speculation, which we don't do per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Of course, the article can be recreated in future when there are some more concrete facts available. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but it can be useful information soon, and why recreate it? It would be much simpler to keep it until it is actually said by the author that the 15th book is to be called other, then the article is to be deleted, if the article is kept, viewers may have an idea of what the 15th book is etc... androo123

Great NEWS: According to users on owl fantasy...it is comfirmed there will be a 15th book called The War of the Ember http://www.owlpages.info/fantasy/viewtopic.php?t=3641&start=0&sid=181c6d7ea04f6ce333010aba67f37a06 androo123
Delete - no reliable sources. And a web forum does not confirm anything. -- 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

There is also a note of the author that she will write the book after or during the 14th book, IF YOU WANT TO SEE A COMFIMATION... http://www.kathrynlasky.com/ READ THE LAST PARAGRAPHAndroo123 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) so does this mean I get to remove the ugly banner on the page?[reply]

Reply - If you are referring to the AFD notice on the article, no you cannot remove it. It will be dealth with in due time when an admin closes this discussion with a decision. As for the confirmation from the author, all this essentially tells us is that she has decided on the name of the book. Period. I fail to see how that provides sufficient material to build an article. She hasn't even written the book yet, and there is not such anticipation of it that reliable sources such as newspapers have written about it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well this whole discussion was about just the name of the book, sure the information, such as the plot of the story, the cover-page, the ISBN etc... but we do know that in time the page will grow, just because there isn't that much information, doesn't mean we should delete the page, just to recreate it again in a month or so, just remove the deletion Template, and put a "This wikipage is a Fictional story stub". Androo123 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but three-fourth's of me thinks that an administrator should delete this page. It does contain information but it doesn't have anything to do with the plot. Most people who go on Wikipedia and see that page will want to know what it is about, not when it will come out or what book came before it or who wrote it. I would gladly agree with someone else if they give me two reasons. (Strix Struma (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Archive?I don't think we should continue editing this page until the book is out. Then we could collect better information. I could even put its contents in my sandbox then delete The War of the Ember and bring it back when the time is right. Swirlex (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

A random list of conditions where the exact cause is still elusive. It is incomplete, and makes a rather odd distinction between ICD-10 recognised and non-recognised entities. I think this list is potentially endless and has been superseded by Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment any relationship to Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? How many of these articles, lists do we have? Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, the answer to your question is "way the heck too many!" (You can expect Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to reappear here before long if the author doesn't deal with the original research problems soon.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete without sources, strict criteria for inclusion, and a clearer rationale for this list, it seems to be an indiscriminate list tinged with WP:OR flavourings. Wake me up if someone turns this into a state better than List of autoimmune diseases before this AfD closes. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any list of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies that is anywhere near comprehensive would have many, many thousands of entries. I don't see how such a list can be managed here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a crystal ball, so we should worry about that when the list gets to be in the thousands, it has about a dozen now. With more research I could probably double it. List of Popes and presidents will be in the thousands too ... eventually. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What use, in an encyclopedia, is a list that doesn't contain, or even aim to contain, so much as one percent of the items currently known to belong in the list category? Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the list is sourced, anyone can add a category tag to an article, and it can be 100% inaccurate. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. You wouldn't delete a list of popes because not all the popes in a category are in that list yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for breaking into the middle of this discussion, but I actually think that having the sources included in the list makes the list more likely to provide inaccurate or outdated information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were 5000 popes, and The list of popes listed a half dozen, then I'd nominate it for deletion. Why? Because it's not "The list of popes" it's merely "An arbitrary smattering of a handful of Popes" and of no real value to an encyclopedia because it does not in any way accurately represent the topic it nominally represents, it would not serve honestly as a reference source of information because it does not attempt to cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An incomplete list is better than no list, so long as its marked as incomplete. An incomplete article can be improved. If every incomplete list was deleted we wouldn't have this reference work called Wikipedia, its just plain silly to delete something that can be fixed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of a gazillion others, God bless you and your medical insight. The Merck Manual lists just two, and of all the articles in Wikipedia less than a dozen others turned up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there a single member of List of ICD-9 codes 290-319: Mental disorders or Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD that has a known etiology? I doubt it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be fixed? Do medical encyclopedias dichotomously classify etiologies as either "known" or "unknown"? I rather suspect they view knowledge of etiology as being more subtle, things are better understood or poorly understood, not known vs. unknown. Do medical encyclopedias have lists of all diseases of officially unknown etiology? or is this the sort of pseudo-medical article that exists in wikipedia alone, because the medical articles are written by a completely different class of people (non-experts) than write articles in medical encyclopedias (experts)? Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a medical encyclopedia, I don't get your argument. And to answer your question, yes they do. Two came from the Merck Manual on the chapter on just that topic. Please try to read the entire article, and actually use the references. Gut reactions are good, and fun. Careful research is better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help you understand this argument. Pete is trying to give you a chance to establish that this list is encyclopedic. Basically, if a normal encyclopedia has such a list, then Wikipedia should, too. Establishing the encyclopedic nature of the list would be a strong argument in favor of keeping it. However, normal encyclopedias don't have a list like this. So he asks, does a specifically medical encyclopedia have such a list? He's trying to give you another opportunity here. However, the answer appears to be no. Yes, the Merck Manual has three pages online that cover Multiple chemical sensitivity and Chronic fatigue syndrome, but (1) no other diseases are in this section, despite the fact that it covers hundreds of diseases for which no cause is known, and (2) no list. Therefore we conclude that lists like this are not normally included in encyclopedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to be original research. Lady Galaxy 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Ironically enough, it is original research to call an article "original research" without attempting to do some actual research on the Internet. I don't expect everyone to be an expert on medicine, but anyone can use Google to do a search. If the article needs references, there is a tag for that. It is also original research to guess that the number of diseases and syndromes of unknown etiology is endless, its not. There is a finite number of diseases and syndromes, and even fewer of unknown etiology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Author of the article. I have tried to explain that the list is potentially endless, and better served with a category. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides sources to support the identifications, all of which satisfies the notability standard. What seems to appear to the unrefined palate as "WP:OR flavourings" is actually a delicate blend of lightly-roasted nutmeg and coriander, with just a hint of fennel, all of unknown etiology. As to the suggestion that a category could replace this article, lists and categories are intended to complement each other, and the grouping and sources provided here would be impossible in a category. As stated at WP:LIST, "Lists and categories are synergistic". Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but it is possible to cite sources for literally thousands of other medical conditions not presently included. Could you explain why a list is needed in addition to a category? JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see how unknown causes ties these together in a useful way. JJL (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A relevant group of items, with adequate sourcing for the purpose. Clearer than a category. DGG (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources should be in the articles themselves, which can then be included in a category. I don't think this is "clearer" at all. For many conditions, several causes are proposed. To try to address these possible causes in the context of a list is almost completely impossible. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sources. Annotated lists are different from categs. But it needs a proper intro sentence to link to main concepts. --mervyn (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to DGG and Alansohn. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I have been thinking about this for several days, and I have come down firmly on the side of deletion. Here are my reasons:
- First of all, because it's unimportant. I rate this as contributing as much useful content to an encyclopedia as a "List of state legislators some people are interested in" would. It does not meet any of the three required purposes named in the list policy, which are to provide organized information, to help with navigation, or to assist with development of the encyclopedia. It does not usefully organize information, it is not useful for navigation, and it is not used to improve the listed articles.
- Second, because it's only known function is to provide a home for a favorite subject of Richard Arthur Norton. This list was basically written by a single editor, which strongly suggests that the Wikipedia community does not need it. The very nature of the list gives me concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations.
- Third, because declaring that a condition has either a "known" and "unknown" etiology does not appropriately reflect the complexities of cause. To give one trivial example, is the cause of a simple cellulitis a bacteria, or is it skinning your knee when you fell down, or is it being distracted when you needed to be watching where you put your feet? (Do you really think that we should list ADHD as a cause of skinned knees?)
- Fourth, because whether a cause is known or unknown can be disputed not just by disease but by individual cases. For example, some cases of chronic lymphocytic leukemia have known causes, and some cases of the same disease do not.
- Fifth, because it contains no criteria for inclusion on the list, which means that it's going to be a POV magnet.
- Sixth, because it makes no provision for handling legitimate (and illegitimate) scientific disputes about status.
- Seventh, because the topic of the list does not meet the basic notability guideline. Has anyone ever seen an independent media source talk about diseases with unknown causes in general? Specific diseases with unknown or disputed causes turn up all the time, but the general topic never comes up.
- Eighth, because the long-standing failure to develop the list has resulted in it being an indiscriminate collection of links, in violation of the WP:NOT policies. Richard Arthur Norton has had two years to address these issues and has not managed to do so. It is my opinion that he has not done so because the goals cannot be reasonably achieved. I think any such efforts are doomed, no matter how enthusiastic or willing its supporter may be.
- Finally, because the list contributes no useful information to any average reader. Average readers -- the official audience according to WP policy -- are not looking for "stuff that could use some etiology-related research." Average readers are normally looking for information about specific diseases. The very little information on this page should be divided up onto the pages of the actual conditions.

Basically, I think that this is a useless partial collection of the names of a few diseases. If this list had been both substantially better developed (in ways that address the above-named deficiencies) and we could demonstrate that it addressed an actual average-reader need, I would support it, but my opinion is that this list is a waste of disk space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - for all of above reasons (no inclusion/exclusion criteria) and no degree of "unknown" specified - hence pityriasis rosea is included in the list which is generally believed to be related to a viral infection (the unknown bit is that not confirmed nor identified which virus), likewise sarcoidosis on the list is known to be an immunological reaction (what is unknown is what the initial trigger is & what the precise immune response is and how that then results in the clinical picture observed) - I am quite certain that sarcoid is not an obvious bacterial infection needing antibiotics, or a trauma needing surgery/bandages/just-rest, whereas medicine is clear that is is immunological and treats as such successfully with steroids & Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. At best a rename to List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain etiologies or List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain pathophysiology. David Ruben ^Talk 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Boulevard

Not notable. City streets are not notable by themselves. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article can be notable if the page has a significant expansion. I'm not sure about two sentences, however. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what notability means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I guess I have a different interpretation of notablity. Anyways, can the article stay if it's made longer? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I write a pretty long article about the major road that leads to my house, can it stay in Wikipedia? Your definition of notability does not matter - this is Wikipedia, where we deal in absolute truth. It's either notable or it's not. And by the Wikipedia standard, it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I don't know if this road is notable; how do you know this one is not? Do you have references? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you even read the link I put above? Lack of references makes it not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say, it doesn't meet notability. It doesn't have any significant coverage, it's not famed. I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years come this spring, I know this city by heart. Perhaps if it were on the same street where Disneyland or another major theme park or attraction is, it'd stand a chance. We don't have articles for all the streets of every single city in Los Angeles county, either. Lady Galaxy 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how "non-notable" is it? Is it up to the WP:50k standard of the top 7 or 8 streets in Anaheim? If so, I'd sway towards a keep/expand. If not, then I see no real reason why it's here. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Is there a list of the Top 8 streets in Anaheim? How are the rankings determined? I suspect that this eventually turns into a state highway of some sort, and maybe it can be merged into that particular article Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe such a list exists. It's really hard to say, Los Angeles is so crowded that even the "small" cities down here all have at least 40,000 people in them. If such a list were compiled, it would take a ton of research and we'd all be tied (ex. #1 would have... 900,000 people, and then #10 would still be coming in at 820,000 or whatnot). The fact that an airport is on the same street makes it a little trickier. Lady Galaxy 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP;50k's an approximation, but it's a useful one - all I'm asking is this: if you were to name the 7 or 8 most important streets in Anaheim, is it likely this street would be on the list? If the answer is a definite yes, then keep and expand; if it's a definite no, and there's nothing else notable about it, then it should go. No-one's asking for individual lists to be drawn up for all cities, or for all the constituent parts of LA, but it should be pretty easy to estimate whether this street is big enough to qualify. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you weren't asking for lists for every single city. That was an example, but it still goes. I was just saying, if they made a list — even if it were just for the most famous streets — it would take a lot of work and be really tricky. I don't know how this will work. Sadly I have to admit that I live in Los Angeles County, not in Orange County. I've been to Orange County a few times and they're both really similar as they only sit next door to each other, but I'm still not too familiar with that city. We need to find someone who lives there. Lady Galaxy 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another unremarkable urban arterial. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Los Angeles Street, this was part of El Camino Real and later US 101 and SR 72. I'm not sure how much can be said about it though. If this article actually contained useful information, I'd say to merge to Anaheim, but it's horribly written and incorrect (Fullerton Municipal Airport is nowhere near the road). --NE2 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails 50k - or redirect to US 101. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect would probably be to SR 72, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --NE2 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. There clearly is disagreement as to whether the necessary independent sources have been shown, but the article shouldn't be deleted under those circumstances. Hopefully people looking to see this article kept permanently will attempt to better source the article. CitiCat^♫ 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The China Study

This article appears to fail WP's notability guidelines and may constitute the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. The article is published by a small, private, comparatively new, general publisher instead of an established academic publisher. There seem to be no reviews of the book in any peer-reviewed medical/scientific journals. More than a year ago another editor noted that this article cites only the book itself as a source and that remains unchanged.DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The China Study is a best selling book, written by T. Colin Campbell, a highly-regarded researcher and an expert in nutrition. He is included in List_of_Cornell_University_people.

The China Study is included on two category templates: Vegetarianism and Health in China.

This can be confirmed by clicking here:[[2]]. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by reliable secondary sources.--Boffob (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book is referenced in pretty much every vegan and vegetarian website and forum out there and it was a best seller. DieWeisseRose, I feel that your behavior is starting to be vindictive and personal for some reason that I don't understand. And what is wrong with including the criticism by Masterjohn that you and I wrote? Michael H 34 has recused himself concerning it, so let's put it in there and get rid of this "only one source" problem. It was published in a journal of The Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization which apparently passes notability standards for Wikipaedia. I honestly don't see the problem. Just because you think a book that advocates veganism must be part of a fringe theory doesn't make it so. This book is notable and we can fix the "only one source" problem by simply adding to the article what is already written on the talk page.--Hraefen ^Talk 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hraefen, no doubt my discussion with Michael H 34 has been frustrating but there is nothing "vindictive" about my nominating this article for deletion. When I first flagged the article on 7 January because it did not have an NPOV, I noted that there may be notability problems. During the course of the back-and-forth with Michael H 34 I became more convinced that this was a real problem and acted accordingly. As for Masterjohn, I'm not entirely sure that Wise Traditions is a reliable source as I already indicated on 15 January. In any case, it was Masterjohn's criticism that first alerted me to the fact that we may be dealing with a fringe theory in The China Study. You write, "Just because you think a book that advocates veganism must be part of a fringe theory doesn't make it so." You really do assume too much. I don't have any axe to grind against veganism and this is the first and only article on vegetarianism I've edited. So, how about assuming good faith? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss the book in the Google news archive and Google books. We are not here to discuss whether the theory contained in the book is correct, just whether the book itself is notable. The article does, however, need extensive work to make it NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger, I looked at your Google results and I'm not so sure as you are. Notability requires "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." Some of the Google hits seem like fluff infomerical pieces devoid of criticism such as the KUAM piece, which seems to be inaccurate to boot. I did a separate search of the NYT and found no evidence that the Times ever reviewed the book let alone called "it the Grand Prix of Epidemiology." And in the first NYT item that pops up in your results--"Unhappy Meals"--The China Study merits exactly one parenthetical remark--15 words out of a 10,130 word article. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the sources for this article they same and often tied to the author of the book. This makes the article seem less, than objective. If this article is to remain in the wikipedia it should contain more diverse sources. this search shows that there has been academic criticism of this study. I think the book may meet notability criteria hence I think we should keep the article-- but only if there is some clean-up and some other sources are added so the content is presented in a neutral manner. futurebird (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory Issues: I want to be reiterate that I don't consider veganism to be a "fringe theory" per se. The fringe theory issues come from the authors' advocacy of strict veganism in association with claims such as:

Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals.
The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages.

It is inappropriate for me to go into more detail about free radicals and anti-oxidants, but even these selected principles are not "fringe theory." I am reminded of a recent TV advertisement (U.S.) for a cancer center that flashes the word nutrition on the screen and shows the narrator walking past a fruit stand. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Also, there are the remarks of Chris Masterjohn, a principal critic of The China Study. Here's an example (emphasis added):

Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that “eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,” 5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

The "fringe theory" issue is related to the book's notability. According to the content guideline on fringe theories: "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have just provided us with a source that shows the the book (which is what we should be discussing here, not the theory) is "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." A critical reference is just as valid for notability as an uncritical one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Wise Traditions is a "major publication" or a reliable source. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with China Project since the book's notability derives from its status as an output of that project. Add more information on the project's scientific status since that has a major bearing on how this book has been received. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting to me that The China Study is not included among the numerous publications listed on the China Project web site. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that The China Study is not included on the Cornell - Nutrition - China Project website, but no books are included on this website after the mid-1990s. The China Study was written just a few years ago by T. Colin Campbell, the Director of The China Project, along with his son. T. Colin Campbell's name appears often on the website, and in some respects, The China Study summarizes the career and thinking of this intelligent and knowledgable man. The website also includes the following:

"The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undetaken (sic) of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings." - The New York Times

"...the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made in China-and one of the largest epidemiological studies ever done anywhere." - Science Michael H 34 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Curiously, T. Colin Campbell is not listed as "Director of The China Project" on the China Project web site or on his Cornell bio. To my knowledge, his book and associated web site is the main source of the claim that he is the Director. It's not entirely clear that the China Project is even active any more. The two blurbs you quote above refer to the China Project, not the The China Study. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the author's bio:

Noteable Accomplishments:

Recently published the book titled: *The China Study. Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health (2005)*. This book is now a national best seller and has been translated into 10 languages and distribution shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, its sales continue to climb and some in the publishing world are suggesting that it is going to have a very long life of several years. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

That is just lovely, Michael H 34, but being a "best seller" is NOT one of the notability criteria. It still remains to be shown that The China Study is notable. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that The China Study is fringe: I have already noted that T. Colin Campbell's academic colleagues have, apparently, not seen fit to review the book in any scholarly journals. I just looked at Amazon.com and only two other books cite The China Study. One is a book about social nudity/body freedom/public nudity and the other is about "ethical eating" and is by an ethicist and an animal rights activist. In short, of all the health and nutrition books on Amazon.com and published since TCS came out in 2005 none of them cite TCS. I wonder why? Apparently, Chris Masterjohn isn't the only one who can spot bad science marketed in the guise of "Startling Implications". --DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not a scholarly book; it is written for the public. Why do you expect that the book would be reviewed in scholarly journals? I also suggest that it is inappropriate for you to imply that the book is based on bad science or that the authors principles are a fringe theory. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep per the earlier comments. --Green wood tree 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - it may be an internet fad, but that doesn't solve the other problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A serious study, about 100 real citations to it in Google Scholar.DGG (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean 9 citations, and some of them seem quite dubious themselves. HerbClip^TM?--Boffob (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boffob, your search was severely limited. There are many citations that do not use the exact wording - The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Try searching for: "The China Study" Campbell - and Google Scholar will come up with 105 results, the majority of them relevant. See here --122.107.170.190 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is faulty. You're looking for any document with the string "the China Study" in it, which may or may not actually cite the book of this article. They may be referring to the China project itself, and not the conclusions or claims included in the China Study book. Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation. Google Scholar provides the actual number of citations for the book itself (at the very top of your search: "Cited by 9", you click that link and you get my search result) .--Boffob (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation." I disagree, Boffob. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep! It's not an internet fad or a fringe theory. It's written in an easy to read consumer version, but with lots of good references. If there is controversy ... include that ... but this book has changed lives and it has changed the practice (both private and professional) of more MD's than any other that I know of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiebel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with proviso. Right now, there is no assertion of notability per the book notability guideline except for one comment stating that this book is "bestselling". Scholarly references are lacking and dubious at best. A source asserting notability beyond internet chat groups and messageboards (which are generally not considered reliable) would be nice. In any case, right now the article is essentially serving as a coatrack for the book's content: a very problematic situation. If the book is found to be notable, the article needs to be rewritten with an emphasis on the reception of the book rather that a cliff notes for its content. A merge with China Project may also be found to be appropriate. Current state of the article, however, is wholly unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the current state of the article is unacceptable then you can edit it - that's the whole point of a wiki. As regards WP:BK, did you check out the Google Books and Google News links that I provided above? They establish notability by criterion 1 many times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not at all convinced through those searches. What this does seem to indicate is that the author of the book has gone on a publicity seeking rampage, but he clearly hasn't had the level of success I would like to see from a self-promoter. Wikipedia has higher standards for fringe promotion for this very reason. Since you've indicated that you would not mind me editing the article, then I'll edit the article. My inclination would be right now to redirect the article wholesale to China Project. The question then becomes, is this book a search term that is worthy of redirect? Hmm, not sure. How many people will type in "The China Study" in caps with the leading article hoping to find information on this book in Wikipedia? Not many, I'd say. So, still, I say, delete although redirects are usually not that harmful. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is inappropriate to add a redirect to an article that is proposed for deletion. (When did "eat your vegetables" become a fringe theory?) Michael H 34 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

To be fair, this is a bit more than simply "eat your vegetables". It's more like "don't drink your milk". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "eat your vegetables and don’t drink milk" is not a fringe theory either... it's called veganism. Millions of people do it. I would hope that people here can separate their personal feelings about veganism from the topic at hand: whether The China Study is notable or not. I realize that most people think that an entirely plant-based diet is extreme (I sure used to), but please do not let this belief color your judgement on this matter.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. has 10 times as many google hits as the China Project. Fringe or not is irrelevant -- is a more than notable social phenomenon. And this, from a non-vegan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please explain why you do not believe that this meets criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books), based on the Google News and Books links which provided above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 is: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". The article includes no references other than the book itself. Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is just book burning. On the grounds mentioned any book covering a topic not previously covered elsewhere (or not published by a mainstream publisher apparently) can be removed allowing a gaps in the knowledge that Wikipedia is allowing the public to view. Freedom of expression is surely at issue here, those who wish to criticise the work have the right but removing it altogether for any reasons stated above is just indulging the critic's viewpoints and accepting their rights over both the author and those in favour of keeping it here where it is easily accessable to the world community. FastFonty (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is User:FastFonty's only edit. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Book burning"? That is certainly a new low in the rhetoric of this discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and "freedom of expression" is no issue here whatsoever. If the book is not notable then the article about it has no business here--end of story. WP:BK says "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." So, to all of you 'keepers': Let's start seeing some reliable sources or this AfD should be closed as DELETE. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many who have provided reasons that the article should be kept, and therefore your claim that "this AfD should be closed as delete" is contrary to Wikipedia's rule on consensus. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Yeah, and none of those "reasons," so far, satisfies the notability criteria for books. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Wikipedia not being a soapbox bears no relation to this issue. The China Study article is neither propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, nor an opinion piece, nor self-promotion, nor advertising. It is an objective article about a celebrated work of literature. --122.107.170.190 (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I find it notable that a book written for the general public is cited in scholarly articles that are published in scholarly journals. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

On the contrary, I find the article smacks of propaganda, advocacy, and advertising. Michael H 34, what "scholarly articles" are you talking about? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is a best seller, and best sellers are notable, fringe theory or not. People will look up this book. It will deprive people of a valuable resource if the article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.79.67 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the notability criteria for books. Hint: "best seller" isn't one of them. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book passes notability "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This book is a best seller and has been discussed in newspaper articles (yes), television documentaries (yes) and reviews (yes). The science in this book is better than that found in the Atkins Diet and it certainly deserves a page. lk (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you,lk. Of particular note, a book written for the general public was reviewed in Leonardo, a scholarly journal published by the MIT Press. The book was recommended to readers by the reviewer. In fact, the reviewer stated that "the book will have an impact." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Maurice Bucaille. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucailleism

Neologism with insufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources (as such, it fails WP:NEO). The term is based mainly upon a "Strange bedfellows" Wall Street Journal article found from a cafearabica.com forum, but there is little else in terms of reliable sources providing in depth coverage of the neologism. Wikipedia is not the place to popularise neologisms. The article currently employs the term as a pejorative, all-encompassing descriptor - much of the sources used make no actual reference to this neologism at all (e.g. the Accuracy or Background sections), hence linking it in here is original research. Similarly, sources like these which are heavily cited in the article mention the "Buccaileism" or its variants not once. Ultimately, it appears to be an unnecessary fork of articles such as The relation between Islam and science and Maurice Bucaille which already possess much of the content that has been pasted here. Hence, I propose deletion. ITAQALLAH 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why preserve the article: It is a spinoff of The relation between Islam and science where one issue - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery (i.e. Bucailleism) - overwhelmed other issues such as the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. (This is not so much the case anymore as I trimmed the section on that issue following up the creation of the spinoff article.)

There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna) (i.e. Bucailleism). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. A google search for

"International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an" (one of the promoters of Bucailleism) yields 54,800 hits. It is not talked about much in the non-Muslim world, I suspect, because it is not taken seriously. —BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (The relation between Islam and science, Maurice Bucaille, Qur'an and miracles, etc.) that some people call aspects of it Bucailleism, but to generalise the issue in a way that you and the article attempts to do poisons the well and does not responsibly reflect the nature of the topic. In fact, the article is partly original syntesis consisting of your own analysis, the rest of it is a coatrack of negative views and sceptical narrative. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge i think this could probably be merged somewhere but i dont know enough about the topic to say where. --neonwhite user page talk 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the Bucailleism article and confess to some frustration. It was created to answer Itaqallah's complaint that undue wieght was being given to criticism of Bucailleism - or what its supporters call "Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah". It is a very big issue in the Musilm world with many websites, best-selling books and international conferences, and deserves an article on wikipedia.

I asked the instigator of this complaint - Itaqallah - several days ago if he has any alternative title to the article and gotten no reply. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an alternative, because I believe most of what is encyclopedic can be covered elsewhere in the other articles we have on this topic. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to contain unreliable sources and original research; no evidence of any notability of the term from reliable sources. Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term in mentioned in Clinton Bennett’s book Muslims and Modernity: An Introduction to the Issues and Debates ~~(Muslim Voices on the Qur'an chapter)~~[3] - an academic source. --RJMY (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a page in Bennett's book (p. 115). Section titled Bucaillism: the Qur'an as a scientific text. --RJMY (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If Bennett actually uses the term as standard, it would make it notable, as he is a leading specialist. -- who is presently lacking a WP article, despite many mainstream published works. DGG (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bennett does use the term (twice if I remember correctly), but not as standard. I'll check again. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I need to know which sources actually use this term. Does Cook? He is definitely a notable source but the question is whether to merge this or keep this separate so who uses the term since that is separate from those who touch the idea of the Qur'an and the big bang. gren グレン 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (in case the above is not answered) because I don't see evidence that this should be separate from either Bucaille's page or Islam and science... or even a general page about the trend of "science proving Islam"... but, I think it's far beyond one scholar. The term might be notable enough to mention in related articles. gren グレン 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cook himself doesn't use the term. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not really clear what this article will discuss, if it's going to discuss scientific miracles claims in the Qur'an then there are better clearer titles that are not bound to Maurice Bucaille. (Imad marie (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Who else uses the term? Malise Ruthven in A Fury for God, Granta, 2002, p.126.
- Notability guidelines stipulate that the specific topic (a neologism, in this case) be given non-trivial (i.e. substantial, thorugh) coverage. Ruthven mentions the word in passing. ITAQALLAH 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: (pasted from above) BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (The relation between Islam and science, Maurice Bucaille, Qur'an and miracles, etc.) that some people call aspects of it Bucailleism, but to generalise the issue in a way that you and the article attempts to do poisons the well and does not responsibly reflect the nature of the topic. In fact, the article is partly original syntesis consisting of your own analysis, the rest of it is a coatrack of negative views and sceptical narrative. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (pasted by BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

We can also easily delete the article on creationism and divide up the text into this and that article to avoid "generalizing" it and "responsibly reflecting the nature of the topic", but again we would ignoring a significant religious movement in need of its own article. As a second choice I would be willing to merge the article with List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles but that is also up for deletion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is precisely that we have masses of academic literature discussing creationism (using this very word specifically) and associated topics. That cannot be said about the word "Bucaillism". The belief of scientific miracles in the Qur'an might be significant, but you are attempting to categorise it all under the epithet of "Bucaillism", thereby unfairly poisoning the well, and attempting to popularise a term used in very few sources. Most of the sources used in this article mention the word "Bucaillism" not once. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's your objection? Another title for the same article is OK? I'd prefer the use of Bucaillism for reasons explained here but if the only way to have an artilce is under a title such as Belief in scientific miracles in the Qur'an or more accurately Belief in the prediction of scientific facts by the Quran and Sunnah, I'd support a name change. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the general belief and not the neologism (and associated baggage), what's wrong with Qur'an and miracles or The relation between Islam and science, which clearly seem to cover the same subject matter? If we want to talk about the word "Bucaillism" more specifically, why not discuss it under a section in Maurice Bucaille instead? ITAQALLAH 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer would be clear if you read what's already been written in the talk pages on this. Predictions of scientific discoveries by the Quran and Sunna is a very specific issue. In the 14 centuries of Islam the miracle of the Quran meant its poetic and literary perfection (maybe numerology) up until a couple of decades ago - unless I'm very much mistaken. Bucaillism also involves some ahadith as well as the Quran, which would not fit in Qur'an and miracles.

As for The relation between Islam and science, how many non-Muslims are going to guess that it includes the claim that the Quran predicted scientific discoveries? It certainly sounds like an article on the development of science in Islam, on the philosophy of science in Islam, on whether or not science conflicts with Islamic beliefs, etc.

Limiting this issue to a section in Maurice Bucaille sounds a bit like deleting the article on Marxism and weaving the text into the article on Karl Marx. There are conferences, TV shows, many websites on the alleged miracles not involving Bucaille, who must be 87 or 88 by now if he's still alive. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the topic really isn't as substantial as you're depicting to be compared with Marxism, creationism etc. Would you settle for renaming to Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an? As for Sunnah, that's really a footnote in comparison. ITAQALLAH 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an sounds like something else, like the use of sceintific techniques to interpret the Quran. I'd prefer Belief in the prediction of scientific facts in the Quran and Sunnah, or if you insist Belief in the prediction of scientific facts in the Quran --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm.. Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an refers to those interpreting the verses in a scientific manner, and the significance/importance of those interpretations. My proposal is as far as I'm willing to go. Whatever the case, the current title is in violation of notability guidelines IMHO, and the article currently has no content that cannot be covered elsewhere (probably excepting for the negative material against the "methods" Zindani and unspecified individuals) - most of it already is. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This issue is being blown out of proportion. I think this article should be deleted, and/or the reliably sourced content be merged into Maurice Bucaille, where ti can also be considered in the proper context.Bless sins (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okopipi (software tool)

This project is pure vapourware. Blammermouth (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep As per the same reasons in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okopipi_(software_tool). Nothing has changed to make it more deletable now. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment it has been a while since I last read the AfD stuff, but I think this was technically not done right. Since this is the second AfD call, I think there was supposed to be an a different macro used (afd2?). Wrs1864 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether something is vaporware or not does not determine its worthiness of inclusion. Please refer to the notability guideline; the previous AFD discussion produced several reliable sources that establish the notability of Okopipi. Also note that this AFD page isn't formatted properly; see WP:AFD. -- intgr [talk] 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This afd was improperly formatted – the {{afd2}} template was not added, and it was not listed at the log for January 11. I've done both now, and relisted it. KrakatoaKatie 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, still notable. —Ashley Y 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Steffen

Non-notable college football player — does not have his own page on ESPN.com or SI.com. Also does not have any accolades or any noteworthy statistics. Article also seems to have been created out of fun. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with the above poster. Lady Galaxy 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All this lacks is little hearts to dot the "i"s. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avec Tristesse

Delete N/N per WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete They don't have any major media coverage, and they don't have any albums out yet. Lady Galaxy 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 190

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the flight number (F. 190) retired because of injury or death? If it is, then it is notable and you should keep it. If not (the number is still in use) then *delete. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: retiring of the flight number is wildly inconsistent among airlines (some do only for fatal crashes, some don't even for fatal crashes), and I can't see that as a reasonable criterion for notability when objective criteria like death, injury, damage to aircraft, or press/media coverage are available. --MCB (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to argue with that, and I'm glad nobody was hurt, but this is not a notable incident. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Mandsford, you might want to read the article: 10 injuries, 6 serious. --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among the most serious of the injuries was a broken collar bone. The last of the individuals was discharged from hospital at 15:30, 7.5 hours after they touched down in Calgary. This may be noteworthy if it changes flight standards (e.g. wake turbulance avoidance guidelines at altitude), but the event itself isn't (yet) notable. Jasmantle (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; wide public interest and media coverage of an event (Google News cites 94 current stories, including every major Canadian and many foreign newspaper and TV networks, as well as aviation news outlets) in which there were serious injuries on a major airline flight, and the investigation includes malfunction of flight director (autopilot) and other equipment (that is, not just simple turbulence). There is no wide consensus for the so-called task force notability guidelines, which exist only as a proposal on a talk page (and, to my mind, have some serious shortcomings). Even under those guidelines, however, this article qualifies ("results in serious injury or loss of life.") --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delete for now - I'm somewhat on the fence. It has received a lot of media exposure, but Wikipedia isn't the news. At this point, I tend to think it's likely clear air turbulence, which is generally not considered a notable occurrence (in the Wikipedia sense) even if there are injuries. However, there are some suggestions that it is something different, which may make the incident notable. The incident is being investigated by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, so if we delete it and it turns out to have been caused by something novel - like software failure - then we can recreate it. And to be clear, I have contributed to the article somewhat, although I also tagged it with {{notability}}. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; the injuries alone would pass WP#ADL. Discussion at [pprune.org pprune] suggests this may be a byzantine failure, brought on by a combination of unusual conditions (CAT) and a design vulnerability of the autopilot software. In any case, why rush to delete? Allow the collaboration to occur and see what gels.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every air accident is individually encyclopedia worthy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete without prejudice - Not notable per guidelines at the moment, tho it's unclear if there may be some lasting consequences as a result of final reports. If those are forthcoming, have a review at the AATF, and restore if there is a concensus to do so, without needing a formal deletion review, as this is a borderline case. - BillCJ (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the breadth of coverage for this one makes it worth keeping, I believe. matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an unusually well-written article on an interesting topic. We have other long articles on non-fatal airline incidents, such as the Gimli Glider. David (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is a current news item that will likely lack any real long term notability. As WP:N says A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. --neonwhite user page talk 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the guidelines referenced here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines, which is referenced by the "these guidelines" link above (see on the second page, the reference "Proposed notability guidelines are available for comment on the talk page"), this incident would be notable. This is per the proposed guideline rules "it involves unusual circumstances" (positively) and "It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life" ("potentially debilatating spinal injuries"—per [4]—are serious, though I concede the wp article doesn't report this yet).

Also, just as a side note: It seems to me that policy should precede AfD rather than the other way around. "We'll delete everything just in case the policy we're making says it's not notable," seems a bit cart before horse. CoyneT ^talk 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Did you actually read the article you linked? It said that earlier reports suggested "potentially debilitating spinal injures". That article made it very clear that the actual injuries were just "soft tissue" injuries - i.e.: bumps and bruises. Also, turbulence is hardly an unusual circumstance. Reso lute 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 10 injuries, 6 of them serious, emergency treatment at hospitals, multiple independent reliable sources with coverage of the incident, this clearly falls within the criteria at WP:ADL. I think these characteristics make the subject of the article highly notable. The article should be expanded once there is a published determination of the true cause of the "computer failure" that is alleged by the pilot to have occurred — a very interesting allegation, especially as it comes from an experienced pilot who can be presumed to understand the difference between abnormal ("computer failure") and normal processes of autopilot disengagement. - Neparis (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable incident, aircraft landed safely, all the serious injuries were that serious the people involved were released from hospital within a few hours, lots of media exposure appears to only relate to North America not the rest of the world. I am not sure what ifs are a good reason to keep an article without reliable evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - There is a pretty good chance that this event - even though the aircraft is reusable, nobody got killed, and the flight number didn't get retired - will be significant in that it will cause a meaningful change in understanding of some air disturbance phenonomina, or worldwide change in flight procedures. If there is such a learning then this article might remain standalone or be merged into the article about the causal factor. If the causal factor turns out to be non-notable e.g. that a pilot kicked the control stick, then delete it. But until then, and if it is within wiki guidelines, we could just leave this here as a reminder.Jasmantle (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid keep argument. Reso lute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Let's document this flight when we know what caused it - if there is something notworthy. Until then, it's news -- and an ongoing investigation. Jasmantle (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously. "six serious injuries" meant a trip to a hospital that lasted a couple hours because a few people bumped their heads. Planes hit turbulence all the time. On occasion, the people that disregard guidelines on always wearing seatbelts get tossed around. This wasn't even the first incident of this type in the past year in Canada. WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:RECENT. Reso lute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCB. GreenJoe (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't encyclopedically notable at the present time; it's just a news story. Transwiki to WikiNews, and delete without prejudice against recreation if there should be some genuinely encyclopedic repercussions or aftereffects at a later date. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more than transient news; that there are no fatalities in this case makes it even more notable.DGG (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. In my opinion this is should be a news article, not a Wikipedia article. The comments from MilborneOne reflect my feelings on the matter. PKT (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note there was another article (Air Canada Flight 190 incident) created that now redirects to the article we are debating here. PKT (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article on a flight.... why should this be deleted? if this should be deleted, so should all the articles concerning flight incidents..... Messiisking (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiisking (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is non-trivial information. zoney ♣ talk 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Spirit Flight 321

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Mr. Preston had a good reason for creating the article, but not every aviation incident merits a detailed article and permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert notability, nor have the sources to attest to it. Nothing of significance happened in the incident, other than the fact that it occurred. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surly concessious wouldn't delete British Airways Flight 38, same type of accident, and no fatalities and and minimal injuries, would it? If this article goes, then British Airways Flight 38 by same rational.Patcat88 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BA38 is different in that it is the first hull loss of a 777 in about a decade of operations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BA38 is also different, in that the cause (power loss) is notable and may have implications for 777s (or fly-by-wire planes in general), depending on what caused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination. --Howard the Duck 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more people can find information on Wikipedia, the better. I do not understand the mentality of wishing to delete information such as this. It may be minor in terms of notability, but it is far less *trivial* than a lot of content on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, it was not fatal and according to the link no injuries. Aircraft overan runway in windy conditions, not that unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the closing admin: this incident is automatically presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's official guideline because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For this incident, there are at least seven independent reliable sources with coverage of this incident. That makes the incident notable.[5] - Neparis (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; reliable sourcing and verifiability are clearly met, and notability is due to the wide public interest in aviation safety incidents involving scheduled air carriers. (A similar incident on a GA or corporate aircraft would probably not be notable). --MCB (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete rebuild it as a WikiNews article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument is an example of systemic bias. It may not be notable in US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ, but remember that English Wikipedia is not US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ-only Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have an Air Canada flight at AfD as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete now that transwiki has been carried out. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage door

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Raskolnixov (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should probably go to Wiktionary. Lady Galaxy 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Garage door (since the article is about a style of outward (rather than overhead) door inspired by the housing of carriages for horses. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Carriage door to wiktionary:transwiki:Carriage door, which will preserve the edit history. - Neparis (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to File hosting service; good call.--Kubigula (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File Hosts

Duplicates topic of File hosting service. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, redirect? Seems a reasonable search term. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was going to say to keep it, however I saw File hosting service and File sharing at the bottom. Those just above cover it all. This article is a poor, watered-down version of those two. Lady Galaxy 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly redirected to File hosting service. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Shall Perish

Delete and salt Article was remade, still has never charted, no more notable than 20,000 other bands on metal-archives.com P.S. Can an admin instruct me how to make the prior AFD box? Thanks-RiverHockey (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was malformed; the AfD tag was pointing to the previous nomination. I have fixed the tag and moved 2008 comments from the old AfD to here. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable band. Has toured internationally, released two albums on a major label. Not every single thing needs to be met on WP:Music for it to be notable. New sourcing will have to be established and it is verifiable.

A couple sources

−₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - looks to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Nuclear Blast. Chubbles (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have produced two albums on Nuclear Blast, recording their third on Nuclear Blast as well. They also made a music video. Just check the sources mentioned previously, AMG is a notable reference acknowledged by everyone here on Wiki. Gocsa (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums, multiple concert tours (including a European one)... seems to meet WP:Music with ease. SingCal (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of user agent strings

Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikibooks is a better place. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting and potentially quite useful, but WP isn't the place. Suggest this be provided without complaint to any user wishing to transwiki it to a more appropriate place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikiperdia is not a tech manual -- Whpq (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT -- pb30<talk> 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD R3. Nakon 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business angel (in innovations)

~~There is already a redirect for Business angel which points to Angel investor. This new article is therefore redundant.~~ Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this can be speedily deleted as an implausible redirect (since Business angel already exists as a redirect).--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

React Magazine

Delete nn magazine article written as a promo piece. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SingCal (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This article is factual. References have been included to support the facts as per the general notability guideline. It would be helpful if quotes were provided where the text is perceived to be promotional. Where this is the case, I shall gladly remove it.

For an example of a promo pieces and blatant marketing copy, please refer to Flavour Magazine, Nuts magazine and Loaded (magazine). Citations and third party references are also lacking throughout these articles. It is only fair I should scowl Wikipedia to ensure all users are being treated equally!

Magman7 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment See WP:WAX. SingCal (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete "Loaded" seems to have some evidence for notability. The other two mentioned do not, and neither does this one. However, I'm not sure what would be appropriate sources, and this needs the attention ofs omeone who knows the genre. DGG (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real notability established NBeale (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, as the consensus seems to be towards merge. However, there seems to be no exact consensus to how the merge is done, so if you have anything you want to try, I'd say go for it. Choose to salvage anything you like or nothing at all for merge, transwiki, etc. whatever, it will be in the history, but I'd say at least redirect to some article first. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Monkey (second nomination). While the Happy Tree Friends series as a whole is notable, I really don't see any evidence of the same being true for individual characters. These articles have zero third-party references (all but two have no references at all), and are largely original research on the characters' motivations and characterizations combined with overly-detailed plot summaries. It is my belief that these articles are unsalvageable as Wikipedia articles under our policies. Powers ^T 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there an existing list of characters that all of these could be merged into? Obviously not all of the information, but at the very least the character name and the episode appearances. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the history, the List of other Happy Tree Friends characters article was originally List of Happy Tree Friends characters. In September, characters listed above were split out into separate articles, although I don't know if there was any specific consensus for that. In October, the article was renamed to reflect the new focus. Powers ^T 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All into either a new List of Happy Tree Friends characters or into List of other Happy Tree Friends characters, which can then be moved to the appropriate article title. There was never a consensus to split the article anywhere on the talk page. Doc Strange (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what there is to merge; it's all unreferenced plot summary and original research, isn't it? Powers ^T 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists don't usually have the plot summary stuff anyway. Just the characters' names and perhaps a very small other bit of information. So that can be done away with. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really a merge, then, is it? We agree that the content currently in these article should be deleted, right? Powers ^T 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a combination article If lists do have plot summary, then they are inappropriate, if they dont, they have no content. or so goes the argument that does not think that characters are as significant as plot in fictional works.DGG (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles have no primary or secondary sources and are comprised of in universe plot summaries, failing WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:NOT. These articles are better transwikied to the Annex, as they fall outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge em SGGH ^speak! 11:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the list of characters for the series. I haven't seen any good reason to have separate articles for each character. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unsure about whether to merge or redirect or what have you but as it stands this name is a bit silly...It should at least be minor characters no?--Him and a dog 14:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if every South Park character gets an episode, and a list of culturally "significant" (Yeah right :P) phrases from The Simpsons does, to, each Happy Tree Friends character deserves the honour (note the "u"). 75.157.191.45 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. No clear consensus on if the article should be deleted based on lack of establishment of notability, or kept for improvement to establish notability; probably worth keeping for the time being for people to work on it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Access computer college

Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable organization. However, precedent usually allows for colleges/major educational institutions, therefore taking to AFD for community input. This is strictly a procedural nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article on a technical college with no assertion of notability or importance. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence/assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails notability, also no references given. -Ravichandar 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This is actually a degree-granting college [6] and as such is notable. The article didnt show it, and i expected to find a mere vocational school, &they are not usually notable. DGG (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. But the article clearly needs work! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. If we start deleting degree awarding institutions we may as well give up any hope of being a serious encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that it has a web site isn't sufficiently convincing that it's notable; 6 ghits for "Access Computer and Business College" and not a whole lot better for "Access computer college" (5 pages of hits but no news). What's the accrediting org. for this institution? JJL (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on The Ancient Future Trilogy. Consensus exists to merge the other articles to that one. I will redirect; those interested may merge as they see fit. Mango juice^talk 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Future Trilogy

Non-notable fantasy book series by author Traci Harding. No evidence of notability provided and a quick google search find nothing in the way of independent reliable sources asserting notability. While the author is possibly notable the books are not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The books in the trilogy;

Two characters;

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all into one article. The trilogy is notable enough for an article, even if just barely. The individual book and character articles, though, are excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the information in Traci Harding is accurate and can be verified, then at least The Ancient Future (if it's not the whole triology that's being adapted) passes WP:BK 3 for notability. Keep at least that article -- no opinion yet on the other articles yet. change: see below —Quasirandom (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleagh. Cold getting to my head. I meant specifically if the statement that The Ancient Future is being filmed, et cet. I note for the record that it was released in 1996, contra the statement below. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, I worked hard on these pages!!! It's a fairly new series, only released in 2006, that's why it's not as notable as, say, Harry Potter. Traci Harding has a fairly large fan following so just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. At least keep The Ancient Future Trilogy page! I can merge everything onto that 1 if I must. But I'd prefer not to. If I don't make character pages then people might get confused because all these characters have different incntations that feature in the first 3 books. The other 3 they have perfect incantations & remain as the one character. --LilMizPiper (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A Google search of 'Ancient Future Trilogy' only comes back with pages from book seller's websites (including Amazon.com placing the first book in the series at #2,540,537 in its book sales ranking [7]). The creator of the articles' clearly acted in good faith when they created the articles, but their argument is basically WP:CRYSTAL, WP:EFFORT and WP:USEFUL - Geocities is a much better source for fan pages. The Traci Harding article doesn't cite any reliable sources about Ms Harding or any sources at all about the performance of her books so it's not a good basis for keeping articles on her works and would be lucky to survive deletion itself in its current form. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Based on sales and reviews it seems the series of book is notable enough for one main article covering all of the books and the characters. Based on the content of the existing articles in question this won't be so long as to violate WP guidelines. Oh, and I get 5600 ghits on ("Ancient Future" Harding) just for the record. The first book clearly came out in the late 1990s, not 2006, so the articles need better souring or research as well as a merge. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many of those 5600 ghits pointed to independent reliable sources? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. My Google search of "Ancient Future Trilogy" got tons of links to book sellers websites, but no independent reviews or other reliable sources. I don't see how any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) are met here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a complicated one. Normally, if a book has notability enough, I'd say keep its article; however, the character articles need, per WP:FICT, some place to merge to, and the only logical place is the trilogy as the character recur through the series. Given reviews and the apparent movie (though I still haven't found whether it's the whole series or just the first book), the triology is indeed notable enough. The characters, I'm finding no such sign they are. So: keep the trilogy article and merge all the others in this AfD into it. And along the way, dewikilink all those relinked characters, just to remove the temptation to create them. Not to mention tag for needing sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ancient Future Trilogy and merge the other articles into it, per Quasirandom. Bláthnaid 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notablity of these books. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ I can't find anything on this that resembles a reliable source. Given the large number of blog entries for it, I'm certain it's fairly well known, but... I do think that moving this to user space might be a good idea. From what I can tell, Ms. Harding is fairly popular at I'd guess that at some point this series may be notable. It would be a shame to lose all this work. If someone can find even a couple of published reviews in a reliable sources, I'd change my opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Eluchil1404. Dude, I spent a while searching, good finds. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a single article on the trilogy is probably best. A diligent search turned up a few reviews that look better than blog mentions.[8] [9] The movie rumour should probably be removed from the author's page. There is nothing on her website, IMDb, or google news, a pretty clear indication that any film discussion are highly preliminary at best. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boom Boom Room

Article about nightclub that reads more like an advertisement (WP:SPAM) with no assertion of notability and lack of third-party references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At this point with the references used, it appears to be an advertisement. I was merely trying to illustrate the club, it's history, and it's contribution to Windsor Ontario. I added the stubs because the article is clearly far from completion and not really up to Wiki standards. It definitely needs more external references before being reputable. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of Notability. NBeale (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowell Khosla

It fails the notability criteria laid out on WP:CRIC, he hasn't played one first-class or List A match. Panesarisking (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to have a few verifiable sources, and those criteria are a bout harsh, but that still isn't really enough. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIC and WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Hotels

Unencyclopedic, tenuous grouping, falls foul of WP:DIRECTORY and, in its present form, WP:NOT#CBALL Ros0709 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - try Yellow Pages instead! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information on architecture and history would be welcome in Buildings and architecture of New Orleans, and articles such as Hotel Maison De Ville, but this is a WP:DIRECTORY transgression with no material worth merging elsewhere. William Avery (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable guests of the Late Show

Indiscriminate directory of guests on a TV show in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Mh29255 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is notable? Hence indiscriminate. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above. Ros0709 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and original research. Almost fancruft, even. Lady Galaxy 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete these aren't notable guests, they're memorable incidents. For those that, unlike Madonna on Letterman, didn't get significant media coverage, it's hard to see this as anything other than WP:OR. I don't necessarily disagree with the inclusion of anything here, but what's the standard--one editor's opinion? I see it's intended as a split from the main article for the show. Beacuase of that, I can see some value in it, but overall it's hard to justify it without some criterion in lieu of extensive media coverage. JJL (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that it's notable incidents rather than notable guests, although it's possible to source some of the items that made news-- Andy Kaufman/Jerry Lawler on Late Night, Madonna, Salman Rushdie, Johnny Carson, etc., on Late Show were reported in the press. Author must have sources. Mandsford (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge - Wow, first time I've used that. Clearly this material would be important to anybody interested in the Late Show and should be included with that article. (However, if it violates WP:SIZE or is stylistically awkward to include it there, it should be kept.) WP:NOT#DIR doesn't seem to apply here; this isn't just a list of guests - it actually has content describing why the appearance was significant to the show. As part of the main Late Night article, this should be covered under WP:NNC. Torc2 (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verifiable, sourced information to The Late Show. Guest9999 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have said merge but the main article is already quite long--and this is a relevant factor in creating subarticles. This is one of the few shows where I think this is actually important enough to include. The Madonna subsection shows a proper further development when one particular appearance is sufficiently significant. The most important elements of popular culture deserve thorough treatment. DGG (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:OR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Wilson

Individual is indicated as American actor and writer for films which have not been released, or are scheduled to be released. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this may warrant a delete for now, until notability can be established in the future. Web searching has failed to reveal RS covering the subject Wisdom89 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that this article is a form of crystal balling. It's far too early to tell, and I can't find anything important on him either. Lady Galaxy 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect Interested editors should discuss elsewhere and perform the required action. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium Phosphoricum

Very, very short article, free of context, does not even say what the substance is, and it's questionable whether every homeopathic medicine (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands or millions) even should have its own article. Also, it's been in existence a year, but noone has expanded it beyond the sentence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: while the article needs expansion, there are ample Internet hits for it implying notability. Mh29255 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Magnesium Phosphoricum is not a IUPAC name for a chemical compound. Nick (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The chemical formula for Magnesium Phosphoricum, as given in some of the many books that document it (take note, Adam Cuerden), is MgHPO₄.7H₂O. It's probably worth noting in magnesium phosphate that this is also a phosphate if you want to merge the two. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remind the nominator that there is no deadline, and that xe should always look for sources xyrself before nominating an article for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and what it says right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If an article hasn't been expanded in a year, then the right thing to do is to see whether it is possible to expand it. AFD is not a Big Hammer for getting stub articles to be expanded. This is a volunteer-written project, and we've had some articles that have taken five years to improve from stub status before now. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At present on the Talk:Homeopathy page the proposal is being discussed to create a List of homeopathic remedies. I support this idea, when the list is created would suggest merging this stub into the list. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be more sensible than having an article for each; I very much doubt there is much to say about them except what they are advertised as treating. -- Mithent (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material,such as it is, can be added to the list of homeopathic preparations. The remedy itself does not warrant an article. There has been no expansion as there really isn't much to add --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains no useful information, and can not be expanded much. The proposal of a table of homeopathic remedies made on the Homeopathy talk page is a much better proposal for dealing with this kind of information.--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- agree with RDOlivaw. "Alternative" medicine that very poorly refernced throughout the net. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just wondering if it might be worthwhile for those interested in homeopathy to start their own mini encyclopedia over at Wikia, and we could have some basic topics here with links to their site, much as we do with Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. It seems some of the homeopathy topics don't meet our notability and verifiability criteria and something like this might offer a decent compromise. Nick (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Magnesium phosphate, at least for the moment. If Uncle G is correct as to the formula MgHPO₄.7H₂O, this should be added to the article. This is a different phosphate compound of magnesium, but could conventiently be dealt with as a separate section. The present article will of course survive as a redirect, so that the use of what I suspect to be an obsolete pharmacists' term for the compound will not siappear completely. I am not sure what the present usual chemical name is, as I last did chemistry, for a degreee, over 35 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be better served by a reference in a homeopathic list, and does not meet the criteria for its own article. Per nom and other delete arguments --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is that not an argument for my suggested merge? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magnesium phosphate and add a note, there, that the heptahydrate is used in making a homeopathic remedy (until a homeopathic remedy list comes into being). Tim Ross·^talk 12:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but what do I know? Bearian (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, basically. I'm going to get a little creative here. Several have rightly pointed out that a redirect should go to Duckman. So I will move this article to Duck Man (Discworld) and then merge it to Canting crew. This should satisfy most, I think. Mango juice^talk 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Man

Non notable fictional character, no evidence of third party reliable sources. Prod removed without comment, author has since commented "I do not think this article should be deleted as it is about a well known fictional character. Since the deletion suggestion I have added more information to the article." on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Mention in the Discworld article would be more than sufficient if it must go in at all. Ros0709 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The info in the article seems to already exist in the article on the Canting Crew. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Duckman, which is almost certainly what anyone typing "Duck Man" into WP's search box would be looking for, anyway. The current subject is already better covered in the Canting Crew article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duckman No comment. Lady Galaxy 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you really mean that? They are currently two different subjects. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't aware of that. That article is too short. Why didn't you tell the previous poster that as well (he said almost the same thing as I did)? Lady Galaxy 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe the previous poster is making an entirely different point, which is that someone who enters "Duck Man" as a search term is more likely to have mis-spelled Duckman than actually be interested in Duck Man, and therefore Duck Man should simply be a redirect to there. I personally believe that it should direct to Canting Crew because Duck Man info is there. Ros0709 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with a lot of American TV shows or cartoons, only the popular ones. I wasn't aware of that. Sorry. Lady Galaxy 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duckman Current character is NN, and I think it's far more likely someone would be looking for the show Duckman and just mistype it. TJ Spyke 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps, perhaps not -- JIC, I put a hatnote at Duckman for Canting Crew; you can change it to the one that says "Duck Man redirects here..." if and when this AfD goes thru. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeA suitable paragraph in the combination article for Canting Crew seems sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub provides no content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Discworld canon; its a Dead Duck. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note the comment on the talk page of the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mango juice^talk 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Blackpool

Article is essentially nothing more than a business directory in violation of WP:NOT#DIR and is not notable per WP:N. Prod was rejected. Mh29255 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks more like a version of Yellow Pages! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think WP:NOT#DIR does apply because point 5 has a get-out clause at the end: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also ... This class of establishment is not listed in the yellow pages in the same way that Chinese Restaurants are. OTOH, the page subject promises more than just a list of places to visit. Ros0709 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the article as it stands now is definitely more directory like than I'd prefer, but there are a fair amount of sources for the idea that Blackpool is sort of a gay-haven for tourists. This article could be redone with that in mind, getting rid of the directory stuff. matt91486 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - first, WP:NOT#DIR. Second, anything left can be merged in to Blackpool - it doesn't belong in a separate article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A paragraph summary is already at Blackpool. Benjiboi 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as is seems somewhat dreadful although well-intended. By re-purposing and directing the article to focus on LGBT in the greater Blackpool area it could be quite encyclopedic. Showing the history of some of the establishments. For those non-LGBT editors please note that any business accepting of LGBT people often becomes a meeting place and defacto community center. Article should be improved through regular editing and I suggest including more history and means of communication to help illustrate the development and changing nature of the various LGBT communities. A map showing where Blackpool is would also be helpful. Benjiboi 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Do we have any other "Gay (place)" articles? Gay San Francisco, Gay Amsterdam, Gay Paris? I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for deletion - I'm just really wary of starting a travelog section of wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree and think a move to LGBT communities in Blackpool or similar would make sense. Benjiboi 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence ofgnotability as a group. This is in fact a true instance of DIRECTORY. DGG (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to LGBT community of Blackpool. There is already LGBT community of Brighton and Hove and perhaps the Gay Blackpool article should be under a similar heading and also read less like a "Yellow Pages" advert?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently it's just a club directory, with no indication that it could be anything more than that. Anything not notable enough to belong in the Blackpool article we can do without. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is definitely notability ([10][11][12]) Article clearly needs cleaning up to read less like a directory with more of the history of Blackpool as a gay resort. Possibly to be moved to LGBT community of Blackpool. --Beloved Freak 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as there is no assertion of notability at all, if you are able to cite reliable sources into the article, then be my guest and recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Iftimoaie

Most of my searching turns up youtube or youtube related videos documenting the individual fighting - I haven't noticed anything that suggests notability or decent coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Might retract based on community help though. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He might not be very well known abroad, but he is very well know in Romania.
Yes the article is less than satisfying atm, but a lot of good articles were like that before. diego_pmc (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you speak Romanian and many of us don't, can you help to add sources to the article? We have fairly strict policies on how to write biographies of living people; it's better if all information is cited to reliable sources like newspaper articles. cab (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, sure. I'm gonna look for the citations that are marked as "needed" in the article first. BTW, are videos good references? And is someone finds something in Romanian, and is not sure, I could check it. diego_pmc (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references; no particular assertion of notability. Biruitorul (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I speak no Romanian, but I can see a lot of hits from what would appear to be reliable sources (i.e. media outlets for whom Wikipedia has articles, like Pro TV [13], Evenimentul Zilei [14], Adevărul [15], etc). cab (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to Evenimentul Zilei's site, says (in the intro of the article) about Iftimoaie being a fighter in K1. However, that article's main topic has nothing to do with that. Would that do as a reference, by pointing out only that part? diego_pmc (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab's good research on the subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATT (V/NOR). JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student city

This was deleted by speedy, I believe by A7. It was recreated, and speedy shortly thereafter and through new page patrol speedy was asked for again, but the tag was removed (perhaps rightfully). I prodded the article, but the article's creator removed the deletion notice and has since added material to the article. Even with the additional material, I don't believe this article meets our notability requirements as I could not find any reliable, independent, verifiable resources to add to the article when I prodded it. If anyone can find anything to substantiate this article's subject beyond it merely existing, I'll gladly remove this nom. Note however, I'm bringing it here for wider community consensus, my opinion is to Delete. Please additionally note the apparent WP:COI concerns, as well as WP:SPA and WP:SPAM. Keeper | 76 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content in this article is verifiable through Babson College's independent study where they studied the genesis of Student City and created a case which business students enrolled in Babson College's Entrepreneurial Studies have referred to. If required, a copy of the case study can be emailed to anyone who'd like to go through it. Also, note that the COI, SPA and SPAM concerns have been addressed by tweaking the content of the entry and deleting unnecessary verbiage. I request the community to advice me on how I can edit this article to meet the editorial standards of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfromhalo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment PLEASE enter the following search terms in Google "arthur entrepreneurship blank studentcity.com". The first result is the pdf of the Case study that Babson College had done with studentcity.com. contact details are in the document if you'd like to verify the information further. Once again, please let me know what I require to incorporate into the entry based on what content's in the case study. the case study is 19 pages long. Thanks!

Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If notability was the issue, then what's stopping the community from flagging sites like orbitz, expedia etc. the wiki guidelines do request that one uses good judgment and common sense before deletion. I think if this article is a notable story of successful entrepreneurship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.51.243 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then find some sources that say exactly that. If it was a notable subject, surely someone, somewhere has written about it? Babson College is not independent of the article's subject. Keeper | 76 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See chapter 1 (pdf enclosed) of the book New Venture Creation : Entrepreneurship for the 21st century by Timmons/Spinelli. This is part of the MBA curriculum for UNCW http://www.csb.uncw.edu/people/rowej/classes/mba533old/MBA%20Entrepreneurship%20533%20Class1%20Textbook.pdf
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780073285917&z=y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.218.194 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another link : http://www.ecch.com/about/featured-case-ECCHO-38-2.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.218.194 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. Your first link (the pdf) proves that Studentcity.com exists, which is not up for debate here. The textbook, however, is about entrepreneurship and is not about them other than as an example buried 15 pages in. (passing mention =/= notability).
2. Your second link (barnes and noble) proves that the book that mentions them in passing exists and is available for sale.
3. Your third link is to a Babson college case study and proves my previous post. Reading paragraph #2 from the case study: "Another of our case proposal guidelines stipulates that cases should be based on field research. This was no problem with StudentCity.com because the entrepreneur in the case, Mario Ricciardelli, had been an undergraduate student of mine. His first venture, in 1987, had been to start a travel agency on the Babson campus, which he continued with after graduation. My links with him have become closer over the years, as both a business mentor and family friend.". (bolded emphasis mine). Hardly independent of the subject, wouldn't you agree? Keeper | 76 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point on #3, I'm trying to give you sources in good faith and appreciate the feedback. But, Isn't link #1 reasonable enough for notability purposes. See pages 7 & 8 of the pdf, it speaks about commitment and dedication to an entrepreneurial venture despite having shortcomings and about the two entrepreneurs persisting with Studentcity till it succeeded and became big enough to be bought by First choice Student Travel. To me, if that's included in the curriculum for business school students, isn't that suitable proof of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.218.194 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Comment I will first say that I greatly appreciate your civility and willingness to work on this article. I will also say that we will likely have to agree to disagree, but I'll give it one more try. The first reference (the textbook's brief mention) does not establish notability, it establishes existence. From the pertinent notability guideline as the Primary Criterion: 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. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. (emphasis mine). Being used as an example in a (rather obscure) textbook is considered, in my opinion, trivial. Without additional sourcing, I just don't see it being much more than advertising for the company and certainly not encyclopædic. Keeper | 76 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm no stickler for conventional sources, but I'm not convinced of notability. DGG (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, COI, spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Nakon 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Sumani

Daughter of individual currently in the news but herself entirely non-notable. Google reports zero hits for her name. Ros0709 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a hoax. ― LADY GALAXY 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete She's sixteen years old. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article concerning the entire Sumani family and their notable story. We should combine it with the other articles on Ama Sumani et al.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ama Sumani's two children are Mary and Sameb according to icWales.co.uk. Where Grace Sumani or Mariama Sumani came from is beyond me. hateless 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anavarin

Non-notable musical group. No evidence of notability despite notability tag. No published albums, only 'demos'. Macrakis (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They don't have any albums just yet. ― LADY GALAXY 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a copyvio of their own MySpace page, as well as failing WP:Bio. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entirely fails WP:MUSIC; it should have been speedily deleted. Ros0709 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Radio

Fails to meet the notability guideline. It wasn't even notable within the campus itself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - on reflection, as they are applying for an FM license and have run intermittently since 1974. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applying for FM license is one thing. But even the students in the campus don't listen to it! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a broadcast station. It's local to a university campus/ But most importantly, there is no coverage in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - internet radio station, does not meet inclusion criterias. Greswik (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability criteria. RMHED (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Despite a re-list for the purpose of consensus-building, it is clear rough consensus on this article's suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia has not been reached. Arguments have been presented supporting both "delete" and "keep" positions, and at the conclusion of this debate, none significantly emerge as being clearly superior to the other.

As such, I have no option to close with no consensus at the present. If any participant in the discussion wishes to restart a debate in the relatively-near future, I would have no opposition to that; however, from the material presented in this discussion, no clear consensus has emerged. Anthøny 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jollix

This was prodded in August of 2007, prod was removed. Article was re-prodded Jan2008, I removed the second prod per procedure in the deletion policy. Procedural nom, abstaining. Keeper | 76 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable distro, orphan article, unreferenced, project appears to be dead. Technobadger (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references to the article, which I think are sufficient. If not keep, then at least merge into List of Linux distributions. (Also, frwiki and ~~dewiki~~ eswiki both have articles on Jollix.) Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is an es:Jollix, and a fr:Jollix, but no de:Jollix, which seems odd for a German-language distro. Technobadger (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was going to be keep until I followed the link the the project website. It doesn't actually exist. Ros0709 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Ros0709. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom?" The nominator is neutral. He/she only explained what happened with the prod tag, but did not give any reasons for deletion. And Ros0709's rationale is just quite...weird. It's not notable because it's website is still being designed? [16] Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It" in my comment was the project, not the website. Ros0709 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did this (or this) website show you that it doesn't exist? That is the project website. And according to this [17], it is active. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Distrowatch page you cite [18] was itself updated in June 2007, but it notes that Jollix's last release was 2004-05-14: Development Release: Jollix 0.3 Beta2. The other refs cited in the article likewise date from around 2003. Technobadger (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I assumed the website was updated, but where did you get the idea that it was inactive in the first place? I just want to know. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distrowatch. I then searched for evidence elsewhere that there had been a release since 2004, and could find none. I could also find nothing showing notability according to WP:Notability, and not a single mention of it on German Wikipedia, including in the deletion logs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether or not the German Wikipedia has the article or mentions Jollix. The sources in the article show its notability [19]. Also, Distrowatch says the project is live, and I'm sure they would update it when they needed to. But that still does not matter. It is notable because of the sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the nine refs cited are from the distro's own site, and can't therefore be considered independent. The remaining six cited are short mentions from 2003 that the distro existed, repeating the distro site's own summary, and offering no evidence of its notability. Are there any independent reviews in the mainstream press or other WP:Reliable sources, as suggested by WP:Notability?

More importantly, the project's site now has no files available[20], no mailing list[21], and no discussion forum[22]. The project really does appear to have died 4 years ago, and no-one seems to have noticed. Is there any evidence of activity post-2004? Technobadger (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Rondo of Swords. --Stormie (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Rondo of Swords

The game's article isn't very large, and I doubt that the game's characters are notable enough to merit their own article. Also, no refs. Suggest delete & merge any usable material into Rondo of Swords. Gromlakh (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short, unreferenced. ― LADY GALAXY 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Galaxy (talk • contribs) [reply]
Merge into Rondo of Swords. This could have been done without the need for an AFD. Pagra shtak 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article's not large enough to need this list split off. Merge back into the parent article. Admin note: A merge automatically includes removing the information, so don't propose merge and delete. Admin note 2: Merge proposals should be handled with {{merge}} templates, not requests for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 12:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Richard Bone. (Quirkworks redirected as well). BLACKKITE 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quirkworks Laboratory Discs

Independent label with releases by one artist. Delete and/or redirect to Richard Bone. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Bone as it is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs non-notable NBeale (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Bone as somebody could type in the article (label) name looking for him. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete. Certainly an article could be created on this topic, but this is an essay not an article. Pastordavid (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of crusades

Unverified claims and original research Mh29255 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR - looks like somebody's school notes. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already extensively covered at, well, Crusades. Marasmusine (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essayDGG (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. Might've been more apropriate to PROD it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note That was my mistake. There was an article with a similar title (and duplicate content) that I had proded, which was then speedily deleted after it was nominated for that. I should have proded this one as well, but had already started the AfD when I realized it. Mh29255 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this kind of stuff is what MeadWestvaco is around for. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and original research. ― LADY GALAXY 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Galaxy (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per John CD, who I think has this dead right-- it's somebody's notes, and someone thought it would be a good idea to turn it into an article. Not a good idea. Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. It's not an encyclopedia article - it's a bunch of notes.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A recreation could be possibly if done right, but this version is garbage. Yahel Guhan 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion Syndicate

Non-notable business per WP:CORP. A related article has been speedily deleted and the creator warned for creating inappropriate material. Mh29255 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while TexorcisT has some media coverage, this syndicate does not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nom was correct at the time but Operknockity is working hard to add references to demonstrate notability. Let's not bite the newcomers and instead help improve the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This an historical article, not about a current organization. I think we should show more leeway to an historical entity simply because references are harder to find. If this were a current organization I agree that it would not be notable, but considering the relative difficulty of finding references I think the organization was notable at the time. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you looked at the referenced articles? They don't mention Collusion Syndicate. WP:BITE shouldn't extend to keeping articles on non-notable organizations. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started looking through them. Most of them mention either TexorcisT, the founder of the group, or collusion.org, the web name of the group. I admit that they are tenuous but it appears that the group was notable at the time. Note that this organization should be classified as historical, not current. I think that it was notable, but is not currently notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Intended - I have been writing this as a historical article. Is there some way I was supposed to notate or tag it as such? - Operknockity (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using "was" vs. "is" would help. Also adding the date it was disbanded. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - That makes sense. I've changed the is to was and put in the estimated date of the group disbanding. Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are we voting here? If so, I vote we keep it! =) - Operknockity (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a vote. The final decision should be based on the quality of arguments, not the number of votes. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This vote is for DGG who states below "if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards". Can I do that? Can I vote for him? =) - Operknockity (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... No, you probably should not vote for him. He is a very experienced editor and could have "voted" here if that's what he meant. But no harm done, since you signed honestly and made his comments more visible. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep in case anyone was wondering. I rather thought it was redundant, since after all this is not decided by count of !votes, but by the consensus of reasonable opinion. I've learned my lesson, and I'll be more explicit next time around.DGG (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It should be noted that:

the article that was speedily deleted was about TexorcisT which was created based on DJ Clayworth's comment (above), but this was prior to my current understanding of how references were to be provided and notated.
I have been advised regarding notability guidelines. "creator warned for creating inappropriate material" sounds like I'm being accused of posting pornography.
PMDrive1061 has retracted their previous accusation of my being a repeat offender as a case of mistaken ID and their apology can be referenced on my talk page.

- Operknockity (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here? is this where this discussion is to take place? If not, please advise...
- "Written like an Advertisment" - I've reviewed these rules and this article abides by all in that it is firstly, not a business and secondly, not promoting or recruiting for the group.
- "Notability" - it seems that you are conceding that the media coverage is sufficient but that it is covering the TexorcisT not the group. I'm having trouble understanding how this guideline is applied as all of that media coverage is from when TexorcisT was leader and spokesperson of the group. The television coverage in particular clearly mentions that the footage was taken in the Collusion Syndicates HQ and denotes TexorcisT as a member thereof.

In what way is this article less substanciated then other similar groups such as the Cult of the Dead Cow?
I've reviewed these articles and everything seems like I'm doing it right:

Thanks, - Operknockity (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Process???

Can someone please explain how the review process works? I add the hangon tag and the someone else comes and removes it; case closed?

The hangon tag was removed only because it was the wrong tag. That tag is used only below a nomination for speedy delete, not for an AFD. (There are lots of process details for a newcomer to learn.) Sbowers3 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a good faith effort to submit what I believe to be worthy content and when criticized I have attempted to make the appropriate corrections/improvements. This has been met with more vague criticism but nothing that appears to be constructive. And now, after being a member for only one week and attempting only two submissions (really only one since the second was really more of a repurposing of the original at the advice of some of the afore mentioned criticism) I am being threatened with being blocked? Really? PMDrive1061 has retracted their previous accusation of my being a repeat offender and their apology can be referenced on my talk page.

If I'm missing something, please advise. I'm new so all advice is welcomed!

Thanks - Operknockity (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of Wikipedia's most important policies are notability and verifiability. A subject must be sufficiently notable to be worth including in the encyclopedia and that notability must be able to be verified through references to reliable sources.

To oversimplify, if there are newspaper articles with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those articles can verify the information in the Wikipedia article.

A cursory Google search does not show any mention of Collusion Syndicate in any reliable sources. That indicates that the subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines and that is the reason it probably will be deleted. If you can find mentions of the Syndicate in newspapers or magazines then you may be able to satisfy the Notability guideline. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By comparison, Cult of the Dead Cow has references from Wired, BusinessWeek, tectonic, BBC, and ZDNews. Those are good enough to demonstrate notability. If you can find similar references then Collusion Syndicate will satisfy Notability and Verifiability. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers3 -

Thank you for the advice. The reason the you don't find a lot of back links is because this group is historical (disbanded in 2001-2002 I think...my research is still in progress). A Google search used to elicit hundreds of mentions.

I think I may be doing my references wrong. Maybe you can help advise me? I have several clips and clippings that I have located on their site. (I remember when I was growing up seeing them in the news for something they were doing or had done all the time but much of this seems to be archived off of the newspapers and news stations websites) What I did was stick them in that Media section I created and just reference from there the main page of the media outlet. How would you advise I do it?

THANKS! - - Operknockity (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz's Edits

Xoloz -

Forgive my being new and non-proficient but I am trying to fix this article. I am told I have five days to do so (AfD). If I have done something wrong here or there I understand you may need to make edits. I do not understand why you would need to undo two pages of edits wherein I was fixing numerous issues (mostly links) and label it a "m" (minor edit) Please explain your edits so I can know what I'm doing wrong.

I'm guessing this may have to do with the commenting of tags. I notated in the remarks why I assumed this to be appropriate and was careful to only edit after the AfD feel free to edit beyond this point comment. If this is your issue, can we just fix that and not throw out all my corrections?

I'm very new so all advice is welcomed! - Operknockity (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I have also posted this inquiry to your talk page in case you don't have this on your watch list, seeing I only have 5 days to finish this work.)

Xoloz - Thanks for the note of apology on my talk page! I understand now that you were attempting to help and deleting my edits was accidental. Thanks for your help! - Operknockity (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards to meet reality. A full array of sources appropriate to the subject--if we don't recognize them as suitable, we haven't adjusted to the internet. Seems a strange thing to say about WP, but in its quest for respectability, it's gotten stodgy. DGG (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Refs

Rearranged a bunch of stuff, changed the way I was referencing media clips (I hope it's better) and added a bunch of additional references. So...tell me what you think. Enough or should I add more? Please advise. - Operknockity (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference - the articles don't mention Collusion Syndicate. Addhoc (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify - I think that statement might be a little too generic. All the references on here either are about the group or site ("Collusion Syndicate", "Collusion Group", "Collusion.org"), about members of the group (usualy the spokesperson, TexoricisT), by members of the group (their work) or referencing them as a source (which I would assume would help prove their influence). Which ones are you classifying as articles that "don't mention Collusion Syndicate"? - Operknockity (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first 'reference' is the company home page. The second is http://collusion.org/Media/010509/index.htm which doesn't mention collusion. Addhoc (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An organization's website is a primary source and not be used for validating notability but is still a valid reference for content.

References 2-7 are secondary sources, albeit locally archived, and are referencing that "the group was often interviewed with regard to Internet security issues by reporters for a variety of media outlets". References 2-7 all are main stream media articles or clips that reference a listed member of the group and usually also reference the group by name (old or new) or by URL. - Operknockity (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the 2nd article doesn't mention collusion. Addhoc (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does mention TexorcisT, the leader and spokesperson for the group, and the quote is taken and article written from that time period. Are you asserting that no references that don't specifically reference the title of the article are valid? That is not the scholastic standard. Can you point me to some documentation regarding this rule? If the article is about X and A, B and C are components thereof, articles referencing A, B and C are logical and valid when describing those components as part of the due process of describing X, regardless of if they reference X directly? I have browsed through a lot of articles and am finding this to be commonly accepted. - Operknockity (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, have a look at the general notability guideline.--Addhoc (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading what you are stating in that guide. In fact, the Notability Guidelines Do Not Directly Limit Article Content seems to support my case. If you are only concerned with notability, then you can ignore but not expect removal of references that do not mention the article's main subject if you like (I still think it's debatable) and there are plenty of references that DO mention "Collusion", be it Collusion Syndicate, Collusion Group or Collusion.org. I did a quick search and references 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are all secondary references and all mention the group in one of the above syntaxes and 3, 4 and 5 display the group below the name of the person being interviewed. - Operknockity (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which appear to be trivial coverage. Addhoc (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if our standards don't recognize this as notable, it's time to adjust our standards to meet reality. A full array of sources appropriate to the subject--if we don't recognize them as suitable, we haven't adjusted to the internet. Seems a strange thing to say about WP, but in its quest for respectability, it's gotten stodgy. DGG (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a single valid reference? All of the links I've clicked were either not directly relevant or trivial coverage. Addhoc (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hog's Breath Saloon

No assertion of notability, nothing to say why this is important compared to every other local restaurant, no WP:RSes to establish notability. Entire article is original research. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless sources can be found verifying the bar's notability, this article must be deleted. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads like advertising. But I've been there...they sell margarita mix that is NASTY... --Smashville^BONK! 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this one a bit tricky. However, Google doesn't bring up any major sources or media coverage. It doesn't meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Galaxy (talk • contribs) [reply]
~~Keep~~ - the bar is notable enough that its founder had an obituary. It is the subject of at least one article that I could find in a quick search. CNN mentions it as famous. I expect with some more work, more reliable sources could be dug up. -- Whpq (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked is not about the same restaurant...and I can't find the mention on the CNN page. --Smashville^BONK! 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll amend to a Weak Keep. There's a lot of hits through Google News, but behind pay walls so it's hard to ascertain if they are about the right bar. The mention in CNN is towards the bottom of the transcript. Use the FIND function in your browser to locate it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to determine which one the articles mention. I know there's one in Houston because my father brought back a t-shirt from there during a convention in the early 1980s (which is how I found this article in the first place). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be at least as notable as Mzoli's Meats. And that's not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's WP:OTHERSTUFFHASBEENKEPTBYCONSENSUSATAFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Phil... but this IS a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... Mzoli's Meats isn't a benchmark by which the notability of everything else is judged, notability is established by providing multiple, reliable third party sources and the article currently has zero. The only related article is an obituary of the founder, and obituaries aren't acceptable for establishing notability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but why is an obituary not acceptable? It is a newspaper article which has undergone editorial review, which makes it a reliable source, and it's clear from the first sentence that the claim to fame of the subject of the obituary was that he owned the Hog's Breath. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can open the newspaper and find a huge listing of obituaries. Dying doesn't make someone notable. An obituary can be used to establish certain facts about a subject (say, date of birth, place of residence, etc.), but it can't be used to satisfy the WP:N requirement by itself. What we really need are some newspaper, magazine, etc. articles about the place, or a book about it (or about the founder), etc. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created the article but I wouldn't argue for keeping it now. That was years ago. I was just adding whatever I couldn't find a page for already and I had a shirt from this bar on at the time. It's not notable. Matterson52 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, if you want to gain consensus to merge this article, start a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jade Empire characters

Fancruft. Excessively detailed list of character descriptions, without references or third-party sources. Detail level makes article approach game guide status. At best, this information should be a 10 line table in Jade Empire. Kww (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom into Jade Empire as some sort of table Doc Strange (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jade Empire, it's terribly unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or whatever necessary. There is not reason for this to exist currently. TTN (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 12:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak merge, because the massive urge to delete or merge fictional characters has to stop somewhere and I believe "List of (X) characters" is currently the best compromise we have. I'm just saying that if this was "List of Final Fantasy XLVII characters" no one would bring this to AfD. "*grumble* *grumble* undue weight" and all that. In this case, I'm sure there's some solution and perhaps some trimming could be done. I'm just not 100% convinced of the merge idea. It sure as heck doesn't need to be deleted and sure as heck doesn't need "third-party sources" (game itself is enough). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its too big for a merge. JE is quite a well known, notable game and I'm sure there are a few other well known games that have mutiple pages here. IIRC there's even a few that have a page per main character.--Him and a dog 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excessive detail "approaching game guide status" is a reason for cleaning up, not deleting. So is more explicit sourcing (fictional entities always have the work itself as an implicit primary source). This is exactly the sort of WP:SS breaking out of information that WP:FICT encourages. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only summary style character list splits would be for things long running series and the like. Single games will almost never require them. TTN (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, where did you get that idea from? On what basis of policy? DGG (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the characters can be covered within prose, there is no need for a list. TTN (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but after reading that backwards and forwards, I'm not making sense of that statement. WP:SS applies to prose as well as list subarticles. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the characters can be covered within the prose of the character section, plot section, and possibly the settings section of the main article, there is no need for a list. That is currently the case, and the first two sections could even use a good trim. TTN (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "list of characters" article for a single video game is acceptable, for example the featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. The information is sourced from the vidoe game itself, which is acceptable per WP:PSTS. Any excessive detail can be fixed through editing. It is better to have the all the characters on a single page, rather than individual articles for each character. Bláthnaid 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read over that article again. Some of the information comes from the games, while some comes from reliable sources. That is one of the very few times a single game requires a character list. If you can find some of the same kind of creation and reception information, this will be one also. TTN (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the information in the Jade Empire article is sourced from primary sources, and is acceptable as such. "Lists of characters" articles are acceptable per WP:SS. Bláthnaid 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, articles need to have third party sources in order to exist (see WP:V). For summary style lists, it has to be impossible to cover the characters within the main article. There are two full sections for coverage of the characters, so there is currently no reason for a split. And no, just because people were able to type this much detail about the characters does not mean that the article would be too long. TTN (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some independent information about the characters here. Some of the characters are discussed in a review here. One of the characters, Dawn Star, is mentioned here as an example of a good female character. The Google News hits also show more articles with information about this one character, and a GameSpot gameguide which would source a lot of information in the article. These sources need subscriptions to be accessed, but they show that this article can be verified from independent sources. This meets WP:V. Bláthnaid 16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with other character lists. Sesshomaru's comment to merge makes absolutely no sense. If it's terribly unsourced, what difference would it make to merge it? Also, Kww does not seem to know what a game guide is. This list is clearly not a game guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wwwwolf. Combination articles for slightly notable characters are such an obvious way to do it, that I continue to be surprised anyone would want to delete them. I don't hold with IAR when not necessary, and it's not necessary here either--the appropriate subdivision of content on a notable subject is already well provided for. (If the list & main article are short, it makes sense to combine the two, but there are still good technical reasons against long articles when avoidable) By now I interpret the opposition to such articles as a dislike for articles on these subjects, and a desire to reduce them as far as possible. that's AGF, for everyone has their right to their own view of what WP should be. Myself, and I think most of us, I think it should be a contemporary encyclopedia, comprehending the popular and the scholarly, arranged to facilitate use, not by theoretical schemes of notability. We should not let ourselves be imposed on. DGG (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on my part, it's a desire to see reliable sources, completely independent of the creator, for everything in the encyclopedia. That tends to be more of a problem with the fiction and game articles.Kww (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be general consensus that noncontroversial description of a book or film can be taken directly from that book or film, just as bio or corporate information that is non controversial can be taken from an official web site. sothey are RSs for he purpose, too. DGG (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough ... it's a logical derivation of WP:SELFPUB. But you can't base an entire article on such sources, which is what this one is. Since there are no other sources, and you can't base the entire article on self-published sources, the article can't be kept.Kww (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge prefered, since the parent article won't be that big once some of the plot there is trimmed/ reworded. However, I can't say I feel strongly about it, as long as the list article does trim a lot of the fat. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cisak

Contested prod. Goalkeeper on loan to a conference club. Fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Article can be recreated if he ever plays for Leicester. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep - From what I can tell, the subject has "competed in a fully professional league" by playing for the Tamworth Football Club. Even though he got sent down (though I suppose he's up again for the rest of the season), I think the above is enough for this brief and to-the-point article. Additionally, being mentioned by the BBC hints at notability, and the article is pretty well-referenced. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tamworth have never competed in a fully professional league. League Two (level 4) is the highest all-pro league in England, the highest Tamworth have reached is the Conference (level 5). It is well established in WP:Football that Conference players are not article-worthy unless they have played in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose the subtleties of what defines "fully professional" are lost on me. I still think the subject is notable enough for the stub article it has, and I'd like to see some demonstration of these types of players being non-notable before I change my position. Also, if it's true that members of the Tamworth Football Club (among others) are not notable, then many more articles need to be deleted. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fully-professional means that all teams in the league are professional. The Conference National has several semi-pro teams (e.g. Farsley Celtic), so is not a fully-pro league (but more importantly, Tamworth themselves are not pro). Note this AfD from earlier in the week on another Tamworth player, deleted for the same reason. You can find loads more here, e.g. this and this. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BIO, as Conference isn't a fully-pro league--BanRay 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Qwghlm (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a non-admin close per WP:SNOWBALL. SorryGuy Talk 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization of public toilets

WP:NOT, Non-notable/WP:NOTE Writtenonsand (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is well-referenced and verifiable. Topic has been covered by major news sources (including 20/20). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently notable: Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the news sources quoted, it seems notable enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A strange topic, but having checked the sources, it seems notable enough. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query: How much is there, really, to be said about this topic? Why not find a suitable article with which to merge it? —SlamDiego_←T 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair enough statement that could apply to many articles here. What do you propose? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't offer a concrete proposal, as I don't have a specific candidate for host article. But this article does seem quite short to me. —SlamDiego_←T 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia weird... Apparently notable, and just because not much is said doesn't mean it should be deleted or that there isn't more that could be added. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to washroom, which is where public toilet facilities are discussed. It can always be spun off later if more information is added. ObtuseAngle (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might seem disgusting (no pun intended), but I think it's a good start for an article on an important topic. LadyGalaxy 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know; looks to me like it demonstrates sufficient notability. Maxa megalon 2000 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs to be made a lot less America-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable subject. So far I have found sources discussing this subject for Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Australia, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Thailand, India and Malaysia, and I've by no means checked them all out. My next project will be to expand this article to give it a world-wide perspective. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but verify. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Airport Services

Sources can not be found which afford this company notability inline with WP:V and WP:N Russavia (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. As a commercial business, this airport management service in Pakistan is unlikely to deal with the general public enough to gain much independent notice. On the other hand, the article asserts that it is "is a subsidiary of Shaheen Foundation, a welfare organization of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF)". Not sure what it means that the foundation, currently redlinked, is a "welfare organization" of the Pakistan Air Force; but it suggests a business with some major government connections, which might support an article. Open to the possibility that coverage sufficient to get to notability might exist in non-English language sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article is accurate (and I see no reason why it should not be). The company ought to be notbale in Pakistan, which ought to make it notable for WP. We should not expect every company in a non-western country to come up on search engines. Furthermore, the name is probably in its original language witten in the Arabic script; this can cause transliteration problems. The article asserts that the company is a member of IATA - that ought to be checkable. Keep but tag as unreferenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The official language of Pakistan is English, so it makes sense that any sources which would give this company notability inline with WP:V would be in English, seeing as English is used by government, business, media, education, etc in the country. The assertion that the company is a member of IATA has been removed, as only companies which operate air services can be a member of IATA; travel agents, freight forwarders, ground handlers, etc can only be accredited by IATA, and the number of IATA accredited companies runs into the tens of thousands. Additionally, membership by an article subject in any organisation doesn't automatically make that member notable, as notability is not inherited. --Russavia (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Shaheen Foundation and expand with more information on the parent organisation, which seems notable per sources at Google books and Google news. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This is a very reputable aircraft/airport company in Pakistan. It is part of Shaheen Air International and The Shaheen Foundation. Many airlines around thw world yuse their service when flying into Pakistan and there are plans for more development within the company to expand. Leave comment on how you want it to be improved and I will try my best to help out. --Fast track (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 8850

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cellular phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article is completely OR, with no references whatsoever. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make an article that's anything more than a review or adsvert, itself. Mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. This model has an especially notable plug in feature. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as above. And stop trying to poke gaps in phone articles. Attack the system not the individual parts of it if you feel things shouldn't be this way.--Him and a dog 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Not an encyclopaedic topic, generic article about a cell phone, Wikipedia doesn't need articles like these, since all that's needed is a Google search and you can check the phone on the website of its manufacturer. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Ksajikian

Non-notable musician/actor Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete – as with the above item, this one seems a premature article too and maybe this man will become notable in due course --JamesJJames (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In the way of free articles, I found coverage here, but there appears to be dedicated coverage by the LA Times here, and possibly many other relevant hits. Association with the modestly notable Armadillo String Quartet, "Over 900 motion picture soundtracks to his credit"[23] and a unique casting situation in True Lies makes Mr. Ksajikian pass WP:BIO by a razor-thin margin... — Scientizzle 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources, not notable enough. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith (Interior Designer)

Significantly re-worked article after previous deletions. Has some claims to notability (beyond being a 3rd place reality show contestant), not sure if it is enough to satisfy WP:N. Procedural nomination based on conversation at editor assistance, no opinion from nominator. Pastordavid (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Losing reality show contestant who's not done much since the show. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the fact losing reality show winners are not notable enough on their own unless they have done something else to make them notable which this person does not appear to have done. -Djsasso (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable NBeale (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6086

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make an article that is itself not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a TON of articles for other Nokia models. And LG and Motorola too. I have no opinion, except that the AfD may be extended to similar articles of equal detail. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Many other AFDs have been filed for many other makes and models. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just got through saying that I don't really care which way the AfD goes, so don't go quoting guidelines to me (btw, from the article you cited: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised...."), but I'm glad you're following my advice to be consistent. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I offered further explanation; a TON of artilces for other Nokia models have also been deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly I have to agree with the above poster. Wikipedia carries articles — a few even rated GA — on other models of other electronic companies. Computers, namely. Google brings up over 740,000 hits for this term. If anything, it just needs to be expanded and cleaned up. 75.5.4.245 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. Somehow it logged me out. ― LADY GALAXY 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Galaxy (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29],

[30], [31], and [32] could be used in the article, which I think are substantial sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I think these capsule reviews aren't significant coverage, per the spirit of WP:N. That's the problem; writing an encyclopedia article of any value using reviews that are all less than 400 words in length (a few of the links you've provided aren't even three sentences long!) isn't useful. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Sources are enough for me, at least. And the arguments saying "Wiki is not a cell phone catalogue" is like saying "Wiki is not an atlas" regarding the article Hawaiian Islands. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not a policy. Also read WP:EANP and WP:BASH. EJF (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep. As with all phone articles. They are well known products and wikipedia has set a precedant for having articles about them.--Him and a dog 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Article is a few lines and pretty much only listing specifications. We don't need articles like these on Wikipedia. If the phone is notable enough it would have a lot more content. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Guadarrama

Footballers without a club, who have never played a game in a professional league. Punkmorten (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N is satisfied on both players, who both have significant accomplishments at the college level. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they fail WP:BIO for not having played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2.6 of WP:BIO is satisfied. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how. Soccer is not an amateur sport, and as such falls outside of that clause, if that's what you're referring to. Essentially, these soccer players never made it. They could return to club soccer in the future, but that's WP:CRYSTAL territory. Punkmorten (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All college-level sports are considered amateur; according to this article, which is linked from 2.6 of WP:BIO, "By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration." College players meet this definition, and by extension meet WP:BIO, otherwise football player Tim Tebow wouldn't deserve an article. WP:N is satisfied with significant, non-trivial sources already listed in the respective articles. Claims of WP:CRYSTAL are irrelevant in this case. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suspect Tebow is notable only because of his Heisman. I don't believe a person is automatically notable because they participated in college athletics. However, before deleting these two, I'd like to see if they played professionally in the USL at some point. If not, I don't think they are notable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Elcock has only made first team appearances with the amateur Brooklyn Knights and Old Dominion University. I don't see any evidence that he played with the Kansas City Wizards first team (he did play for their reserves). Jogurney (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as according to article fail WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both fail WP:BIO BanRay 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not played for a fully professional team - and with reference to the argument of Roehl Sybing, association football is not an amateur sport; it is a professional sport, played by professional teams in the US; and this individual has not played for one of those professional teams. Robotforaday (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit Bulls

Short lived wrestling tag team that didn't do anything notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pitbulls - redirect and then briefly mention in an alternate versions section (i mean i can think of at least three Pitbull team) that this team used the name and similar gimmick. --- Paulley (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable team. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had several title matches at PPV's. More notable than other teams. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to The Pitbulls looks the most pragmatic solution. TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on reflection, per EdJohnston. TerriersFan (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The idea of redirecting to The Pitbulls just sounds confusing. One possibility is to redirect to Jamie Noble, one of the team's members, who appears notable in his own right. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notable and sourced, but not a POV fork, while the other articles are too long already. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori in the United States

Nominated for deletion by Alinroch with reason: "This article was improperly split from the main article. Please delete it." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, or merge to Education in the United States. There are no other "by country" sections of the main article, Montessori method, so including one just for the US would be unbalanced. There are links to the main article from Education in the Netherlands, Education in Australia, Education in Germany, Education in Sweden, Education in Norway, History of education in Japan, and perhaps some others that escaped my notice. That seems a much more fruitful approach. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education in the United States is already a lengthy article so a link is proably a better option. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, merge back to Montessori method which is the proper place for this article as splitting this by country adds no value. Montessori is primarily a United States education method, regardless of its origins. Creator claim of systemic bias does not apply. 69.207.139.221 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless that's why there's so much about it in the article Education in the United States. I suppose next you'll be telling us that toast is primarily a US food, regardless of where else it is eaten? --Paularblaster (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me that no other country eats toast in bulk and I'll be happy to listen to you. 69.207.139.221 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might try reading the various national educational articles I linked to? --Paularblaster (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Montessori method. Montessori is notable enough, and a national breakdown might make sense... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently distinctive and important for an article by itself. DGG (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encapsulates the topic well, allows it to be categorised by country, makes the Montessori method article from which it is split less country specific, avoids systemic bias issues. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 06:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce Avenue

Seemingly non-notable group. Prod removed by another editor claiming notability under point 9 of WP:BAND; i don't think the songwriting contest is "a major... competition" and in any case, the band aren't mentioned, their frontman is. That might be an argument for him to have an article but not them. tomasz. 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Having immense popularity on YouTube does not automatically qualify a band for notability. And I don't even see a mention of said contest. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The John Lennon Competition that they won looks like it might be considered a major competition, but I don't know that it's enough for a band with no radio presence, no record label and a discography with no LP's. SingCal (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their first LP is coming out in March. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Walden Conservatives

This was declined speedy, though I'm not quite sure why. The article asserts notability because the Saffron Walden Conservative association is one of the most successful in the country. However, a Google search (standard, news and books) brings nothing up to substantiate such a claim. The article itself only offers links to Conservative sites and news sites with Conservative feeds. It is just political spam - I can't think of any notable UK constituency associations of any party that would deserve their own article and I can't find anything that would bring this up to standard. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy, because the article contained assertions of notability, as the nominator themselves notes. There is a difference between the bars required for Speedy and AfD, for obvious reasons. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep http://www.google.com/search?q=saffron+walden+conservatives&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 our Google pressence and can you please allow us time to upload our history section, I am sure this will bring the article up to standard. Seeing as you can find millions of articles based on former Norwich city reserve players who played 3 games, our article is far more relevant than that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffronwaldenconservatives (talk • contribs)
- Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that argument won't get you anywhere. Notability of this must be asserted using reliable secondary sources. Note the text at WP:RS : Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Saffronwaldonconservatives has fallen foul of the username policy and the account is blocked. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First page of Google is full mostly of sites apparently owned by the org or mentioning just Saffron Walden. GNews returns nothing. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its effectivly a self-bio/publicity hub, as opposed to an encyclopedic article or subject. It also fails WP:notability. Plus, where would it stop - the Outer Mongolia greater or lesser liberal club? I can but agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local constituency organisations can be notable, but no strong evidence of this is given in the article. Notable constituency organisations would be those which, for example, have been centres of controversy etc. No evidence given that this group is the subject of multiple non trivial references in reliable sources. NB The constituency itself is of course notable. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no place to merge, if a list of characters article is created, then I'll undelete and merge Secret ^account 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leane Sharif

I am very doubtful about the notability of this fictional character (and of most or all of the same series's characters) and about the possibility of finding independent sources about it. So my first impulse was to prod it, or redirect it to The Wheel of Time. But I must admit that the sheer number of WoT-related articles, and a consideration for the work of the editors who wrote them, made me bring the question here, and ask for other editors' opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge proposal to collect most of the characters in Category:Wheel of Time characters into a (likely very long) List of Wheel of Time characters does seem to be in order. Per WP:FICT, that should be the second step, after searching for sources to support notability, with going to AfD only after those steps have been exhausted. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is not even one cite indicating real-world notability here, and no assertion of notability. Without that, there is no way to assume notability, and one has to conclude merge or delete. --Lquilter (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, according to WP:FICT and WP:AFD. First you also have to look for sources to confirm notability yourself. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a google search turns up a lot of forums & fansites.[33] Google Scholar turned up ZERO hits,[34], and Google Books turned up only hits from the Robert Jordan books and what appears likely to be translations of the RJ books.[35] - So, instead of merely commenting, I can now confirm that I recommend deletion. (And so far as I know, neither WP:FICT nor WP:AFD require me to go looking for sources simply to comment on an AFD that someone else has raised. And certainly not if I'm recommending merge as an option. If I'm missing something do please point it out.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough -- and apologies for my inappropriately sharp comment. I was indeed treating you as if you had said that as nominator. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings; we all do get a little testy sometimes. Thanks for the gracious apology. --Lquilter (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, let me add that I had indeed Googled and Book-googled the subject too, and I should have said so. Of course, Google is not the be all and end all of possible sources, but I'll be rash and venture to say that I'd be very surprised if sources other than fan sites (and fanzines and the like) would emerge. Thanks to Quasirandom for pointing out some shortcomings in my nominations, which I confirm nevertheless. Goochelaar (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I too would be surprised if independent notability for this character showed up. Merge is still preferable, as the notability of the characters as a whole, and more specifically of the Aes Sedai as a whole, can almost certainly be substantiated. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be fine; I assume that there are third-party cites for various aspects of the RJ universe. --Lquilter (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realized I never got around to actually saying merge to List of Wheel of Time characters, and open discussion on doing the same to the less-notable members of the category. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a suitable combination article. This is only a medium importance character in the series. DGG (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor characters in minor fictional works should not have their own pages. There are no 3rd party Reliable sources given and no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG et. al. Hobit (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Mergeto someting like List of Wheel of Time characters. Not much to merge though- this is only in-universe, no RL notability in the article at all. Greswik (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Splasher

Article is essentially a news story in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS limited to New York City about an unidentified street graffiti vandal, whose momentary notoriety is limited to a series of graffiti events over a period spanning only a few months and, thus, fails WP:BIO as this is not a professional set of published works. Mh29255 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the article had some sort of link to a news story about the g(uy|al), perhaps. But no assertion is made as to from where the notability stems. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's made two well know art blogs in the UK, one at The Guardian and the other The Saatchi Gallery. I know UK artistes we have kept on lesser WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources for the genre. DGG (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is starting to get a bit absurd. I have trouble understanding why an article on every character and episode of the most minor anime series qualifies as notable, yet a huge cultural flap in New York City over the course of seven months involving a vandal that captured the international public's heart and minds is not-notable. I have been editing under this account for four years, and while I don't waste my time trolling the new articles page in search of my next power trip, I think I have a good grasp on what is notable and what isn't. This is exactly the kind of article that wikipedia should have in its archives--a subject that draws from a year's worth of sources, that gives a broad overview of the subject that couldn't easily be done otherwise without many, many google searches. The Splasher is notable enough to have been mentioned on television and in the international media. S/he sparked discussion, debate, passionate argument about the merits of art, what is art? where is the line drawn with street art, etc. The Situationists in Europe had a similar impact. As you can see by actually checking the sources, news on The Splasher appeared, among other sources, in the New York Times, New York Post, New York Magazine, Washington Post, Village Voice, Wired Magazine and The Guardian.

I usually spend my time making smaller edits than writing new articles, but I feel quite impassioned that this article belongs in Wikipedia. In fact, I was initially quite shocked that there was no article existing yet. I tried hard to incorporate no unverifiable claims, to make everything sourced and have no original research. I updated this article several minutes ago with a new section concerning the cultural impact of The Splasher. If this is not enough to convince that this article belongs in Wikipedia, then I'll give up, but not without a fight.

Please, don't just scan this article and plop down your vote, actually read it, read a few sources, and then cast an opinion. Quick and irresponsible deletion is tantamount to ignorance. As the original author, I am ineligible to vote, though obviously I believe it should be kept. Slugmaster (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not news, but this is a story with apparent cultural interest. bikeable (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be getting attention from serious art critics, rather than just news reports, so I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMME

Article about software developed by author of article (first version has recently been released); reasons for this nomination are: notability has not been established and conflict of interest (promotion of own software, albeit software under a free license and not commercial software) - Simeon87 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: of course, no assertion of popularity yet. However, there are a lot of CMS'es on the list of 'notable content management systems', that I'd consider just as 'unnotable', and mine is the only one completely based on files that has wiki simplicity and wysiwyg simplicity. It differs a lot from all other CMMS's I've seen and tried on these points. Along with these remarkable points, it also has very low hosting requirements. I think all these aspects make it 'notable'. Hans Oesterholt (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The previous comment was made by the creator of the artice and the developer of the software. - Simeon87 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Yes indeed. IMHO, this piece of software is different from others. I put it in the CMS list for free open source software, because I believe it is different from other CMS'es (otherwise I wouldn't have created it). Hans Oesterholt (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage of the software in intellectually independent secondary sources [36][37] means that Wikipedia should not have an article on it per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N. cab (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to attest to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Si-Ware Systems

Contested prod. Non-notable company. Article is thinly-veiled press release/advertisement. Few relevant Google hits, mostly in company directories or online resumes of current of former employees. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on this is one of few companies in Egypt working in this field and being in Egypt (developed country) this is a notable startup company,about the press release, yes i added some press release but i also added some news about winning best business plan and i intend to modify the topic and add some more details about the company and this industry in Egypt. so i think this topic should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safwatonline (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hangon this is a notable company in Egypt. and it represent one of the few IC Design companies in Africa. --Kanote9 (talk) 6:34 AM Tuesday (EET) - Time in Cairo, Egypt
Delete per nom: non-notable company per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. The article begins: SWS is an independent fabless custom ASIC design house providing full-service ASIC solutions. . . As you know, I consider referring to products or services as solutions to be a per-se breach of WP:NPOV, and a very strong indicator of spam. Mildly perplexed by the neologism fabless as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a neologism. It simply means that the company doesn't have a fab of its own. The concept of fablessness is not even confined to IC manufacturing. Nike has been described as a "fabless fabricator". Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yep, i agree with Jonathan, fabless means that they don't have their own fab Fabless semiconductor company, so this is just a description of the company.
Speedy Delete - its an advert! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - either it is a copyvio from here or if the editor creating the article does have the rights to release the material under GFDL, it's spam. But speediable either way. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative velocity

Discussion from talk page:

This article is a candidate for for deletion, as it is in a mess and has had inconsistent and inaccurate edits with seeming destructive edit wars. Relative velocity is not an article of opinion but of basic fact!. A paragraph can be incorporated in Velocity. Zubenzenubi (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. This was my suggestion originally too. Anyone who objects to deleting this article and including a paragraph in the velocity article please object here before 23rd Jan 2008. I will delete this article by then if no one else does so. Mushoo (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an incomplete nomination. I'm completing it now. No opinion is being expressed by me. And I also told the second editor that they wouldn't be deleting it. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Velocity, which already contains a description of relative velocity. Mh29255 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The confusion indicates the need for the article and its current state seems fine. The main article on velocity is the one that needs work IMO, being too technical currently. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being inconsistent, having inaccurate edits, and being the subject of edit wars is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to (a) improve the article, (b) seek dispute resolution if necessary, and (c) instead of wholesale reversion of others' edits, bouncing back and forth between competing incomplete versions, consider incorporating the "good" portions of each competing version, and compromise. The real, separate question is whether there could be enough here for a stand-alone article, or if it should be incorporated into and redirected to Velocity. I think expanding this material in the Velocity article would overwhelm that article, giving too much weight to the #Relative velocity section. I believe there is enough potential material here that a separate article is warranted, although I'll admit it's somewhat close to the borderline. --barneca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but thoroughly improve. —SlamDiego_←T 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important physics concept, definitely need to keep the article despite its flaws. matt91486 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important concept which merits its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 no context, g1 patent nonsense, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defferafferites

Google returns nothing for this ancient culture, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to PROD it but this may save time. Sounds like a hoax, improbable name, no sources given, no ghits, no explanation of what connects this "ancient race" with today's "classsified members". JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-fferaffer-lete Long lost race discovered in 1962, but there are 3,000 of them today; college students find "ancient scroll" in Aztec tomb; this isn't even a good plot for a low budget film. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Value of Social Networking

Delete - article is an essay, pretty much entirely unsourced WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with above, not appropriate for Wiki. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article which is original research and unverifiable per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly, per above. With social networks becoming increasingly common, and with millions of users, it is becoming very reasonable to draw money from the social networking sites. Several business models are commonly used to build revenue. When you find yourself faced with a sentence that opens with a clause observing that something or another is a Next Big Thing, the remainder of the sentence is likely going to tell you how to Make Money Fast from the Next Big Thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Smerdis, you took my quote! :P Seriously, it reads quite inappropriately for an encyclopedia article. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - This article was intended to document the complex relationship between social networks and business without offering an opinion on the matter. The article was Flagged for Deletion within its first hour of creation, and the revised version is better aligned with the Wikipedia guidelines. For example, references have been added to address the issue of original research and verifiability Vicperotti (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinclair

No claim of notability. The credits he might have aren't major (writing a 60s B-movie doesn't cut it) Montchav (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The importance of this writer does not reach an encyclopedic level. The subject is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I accidently prodded this without realising it was up for AFD (whoops), but beforehand I did an extensive search for sources and couldn't find any. PirateMink 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Seeman

fails WP:BIO. Can't find any evidence of notability. Not on Google scohlar, News, Books anyway Montchav (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is it just me, or does the article read like it might have been written as a freely hosted informational page for prospective students? The tone's strange. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creation of a website called "The Tolkien Music List" is not enough to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO & WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark gunman

This article seems to be about an obscure character genre which I have never heard of. Although the author provides several examples, he does not source his article at all, and it seems to me that this "genre" was conjured up on the spot. I am nominating this for deletion because of lack of notablility. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - First, this is original research. Second, it is quite likely wrong in it's speculations. Third, there are no sources currently and from a quick google search, looks like there wouldn't be any sources identifying this term as a common one for "stock characters". Gwynand (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. A search for the phrase "Dark gunman" with archetype, or with stock character turns up no reliable sources. Combing through the results of "Dark gunman" alone shows nothing promising either. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unsourced from reliable sources, non prejudicial closure article can be restored if relaible sources are found Gnan garra 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Top (Bruce Bravelle)

Provides no context that allows the reader to assert the notability, needs at least one source (other than a list) preferably an online one.--The Dominator (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as creator of this page I thought the character was notable enough. This is an article for creation page, so most of the content is not mine. This character had a comic strip named after him. He was not just a minor actor, he was the main character in his strip. I have pulled up some more sources, so that verification is possible that The Human top existed, and was the first Human Top. Since he is from the 1940's there is not that much online compared with the modern superheros, who are not actually more notable because they were created in the internet age! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Human Top also got a write-up in the bestselling All in Color For a Dime on a chapter of improbable superheroes; even kids thought the spinning superhero was kind of silly back in the 1940s Mandsford (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons already stated above. BOZ (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the foregoing arguments --Calabraxthis^(talk) 07:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no significant Reliable Sources and no evidence of notability at all.NBeale (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that comes at all close to being a reliable source is the Encyclopedia of Superheroes, which is an out-of-print book. The web sites that are listed as references all contain user-contributed information, so we can't use them as a source for facts per WP:SPS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected and blanked as per consensus, Gnan garra 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's controversies

Redundant article. There is no need of separate page for controversies. Vikrant 11:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. She was controversial? Who knew? As with Michael Jackson, this is one of these cases where the person's work and their spare time have both been the subject of a lot of ink over the years. I believe this was created as a fork after the article about the Material Girl started to have too much material. Keep. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not entirely redundant from the main article. However, this was also not a properly performed split according to WP:SUMMARY (Not that I know what that guideline looked like at the time). The article was created by Dsm14 and mentioned in the parent article simply with this edit. Depending on WP:SIZE and consensus, worthwhile content should be moved back to the parent article and this article be blanked, or controversy from the parent article be properly moved to this article, so as to follow WP:SUMMARY. Either way, this is a task for the appropriate discussion pages, not AFD. -Verdatum (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and Verdatum. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if relinked to main article with a summary. Otherwise delete as a content fork. EJF (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madonna (entertainer). All of the above arguments make sense to me, but the conclusion to "keep" this simply does not. Madonna's biography already deals significantly with criticism and controversy. If the Madonna article is getting to long, it should be broken down per WP:SUMMARY, but separating out the controversy is a very poor idea. As for merging content back, that priority has to take a back seat when we're dealing with forking. Make the article a redirect, the history will be there if anyone wants to merge any of the text. (Note, though, that the text here is a lot less good, and a lot less referenced, than the original article.) Mango juice^talk 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madonna (entertainer) per Mangojuice. Greswik (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect by now until someone fix article to conform to WP:SUMMARY. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable commercial resort. Golf courses are rarely notable per se, even if the first on an island (except St. Andrew's Scotland). This is not a free web space for golf resorts. No reliable cites were found. WP:COI and WP:POV also noted. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Elounda Deluxe Resort

Notability of resort not asserted. I believe it fails WP:CORP Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of resort relies on it's being the first golf course on the island of Crete, thus marking an important milestone in the island's tourism history. Fkokotos (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is a bit spammy, and there are no reliable sources attesting to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources as follows: http://gogreece.about.com/od/sportsingreece/a/portoelounda.htm http://www.hgf.gr/cms/cms/front_content.php?lang=1&idart=14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkokotos (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RadioTiki

no claim of notability. No gbc or news hits - just blogs and user-created sites with hits as far as i can tell Montchav (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the program has been active since 2000 might indicate some notability, but the lack of coverage says otherwise. Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, et al. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, which covers online radio and podcasts. As an aside, I sure hope they actually have the rights to use that B-52's song. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renshikan

No claim of real notable. It's a close one though - I prodded it before, de-prodded as it was a borderline case Montchav (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, which requires inter alia plenty of Reliable Sources. NBeale (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks notability. There may be a sentence or two that could merge somewhere. --Stormbay (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Looks fairly large and a quick google search turned up quite a bit that looked like reasonable sources. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert (esp. the last paragraph). No sources, and no claim of notability --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete new style, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Réplica (band)

Little web hits. Doesn't even have their own website - using Myspace. nothing comes up for News search of Replica and noiselab (their label). WP:MUSIC says no. Montchav (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. I want to point out: not having a MySpace page for their band isn't a big deal though. Many bands (notable or not) don't use MySpace. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the point was that the band does not have its own web site, and uses MySpace a its only web presence. In other words, they're too cheap to spring for "replicaband.com" or some such. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Between their discography with Noiselab and the reviews in the "features" section, they seem to squeak by WP:MUSIC. SingCal (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem to miss the notability level for inclusion here. --Stormbay (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Re-direct to El Castell de Guadalest. School appears to exist, so re-directing to the local area article as re-directs are cheap. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Bernia British School

no claim of notability for this school. Montchav (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm actually an inclusionist when it comes to the schools discussion, but when doing a google search of this school, their are only 8 hits (yes on all of google) and the first two are the wikipedia page and the afd page. So it isn't even confirmed that this school exists, let alone finding any secondary sources to report info on it.Gwynand (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about this google search? It certainly seems to exist. Now, is it notable... I'm not sure. —Noah 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I did a quoted search of "Sierra Bernia British School" and also the other name it says it is known as in the article, both giving under 10 hits, including the wiki pages. So... I guess it is actually called "Sierra Bernia School". Even then... no news articles come up, etc. Still don't think it is notable.Gwynand (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename might be in order? I'm sure I've been told here more than once that there is a consensus that "High Schools are notable". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if it even belongs on the English wikipedia and if it will really be maintained here. I agree that all valid highschools should be included... but this doesn't meant ALL high schools worldwide (think of China, India, etc...) in the english wikipedia. This school is in Spain, but it may be an English speaking school. The stub for the school now doesn't look promising. At the moment, anyone reading the page might feel the need to do further research to even be sure the school exists (like we had to do).Gwynand (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It' an English-language school. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gwynand. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as it does not yield anything worthwhile on searches and appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot get excited about this AFD but I must take issue with valid highschools should be included... but this doesn't meant ALL high schools worldwide (think of China, India, etc...) What does this mean? Surely we treat subject independent of what country they are from, Seems to me that a Britsh school in Spain is more notable than the sane school in Britain. If it was in China, or it was the only school in Alicante that was British then I would definately vote keep. If we say we are going to include ALL schools of type "x" then it does mean ALL schools worldwide. Victuallers (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me three. Either "all high schools or notable", or high schools with sources are notable, or some other consistent standard please. An arbitrary principle like "all high schools in countries speaking our language are notable" reeks of systemic bias and horse-trading between school notability extremists and school non-notability extremists. I'd also point out that this kind of standard was rejected after being proposed by User:Noroton at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(schools)#Different_criteria_for_English-language.2FNon-English_language_schools_.26_districts. cab (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixel

no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sixel is obviously not a very important format now, and probably wasn't in its heyday. It does have a bit of significance, though, and I've added a couple of minor references, which were about all I could find. Tim Ross·^talk 11:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per Tim Ross's comments. Mh29255 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim Ross. More-than-adequate sourcing, a suitable topic for Wikipedia (cf:Hercules Graphics Card). Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester County Airport

WP:NOT WP:NPOV Small airport, no major airline service. Who's heard of it? 68.193.85.33 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ((comments based on the nominator's talk page comments on White Plains Airport.) Granted HPN doesn't make major news, but then when do the airports when something other than flights aren't going on? So I guess on that grounds it fails to be notable? It has been in local news of late due to residents concerns about expansion and traffic. As for the no major airline service? jetBlue, Northwest and American fly from there, as does AirTran, I believe. I don't know what the other criteria for airport specific deletion/keeps are but I'd say that while this is no EWR/JFK/etc, it's certainly an airport that deserves to be included. Travellingcari (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not listed on the AfD page so for now this is not a proper nomination. Without a proper nomination, this discussion is not really going to lead anywhere. I copied the comments from the talk page here to indicate the reasoning. I'll likely pull the article tag since the process was not completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Westchester County Airport is smaller than the major New York area airports (JFK, LaGuardia and Newark), it does offer scheduled service on nine commercial airlines: Air Canada, AirTran, American, Continental, Delta, JetBlue, Northwest, United, and US Airways. According to the Federal Aviation Administration records for the year 2006 it had 511,559 passenger boardings and averaged 461 aircraft operations per day. That certainly makes it notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The fact this was even nominated for deletion is absurd. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major New York City area airport. Further evidence that the XfD process needs to be greatly restricted. Alansohn (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major airport with internationl flights and multiple "...major airline service." I suspect that the IP was thinking of another airport. Anyway the most important reason to keep is that it has "...a little candy bodega on the first floor." CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: airport is notable. Mh29255 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously strong keep-- It's an airport. It has not one, but two asphault runways, one more than 6,000 feet long. Request a wet trout for the nom. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know, I might be piling it on, but an airport with 2 asphalt runways seems notable enough. The references are good, too. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and consider WP:SNOW. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the major alternative airports in the NYC area, the Tri-State equivalent of John Wayne Airport or Ontario International Airport in the LA area. It has major airlines flying from it, it's definitely notable. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No major airport service? What do JetBlue or Air Canada count as? Then again, it is served by a tiny airline no one ever flies, American, so that's probably grounds for delete. WP:AGF definitely applies; I think the author might be pondering a different field. U (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this is even being considered for deletion adds to the mountain of evidence that anon editors should not be able to nominate things for deletion.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind closing this? I would myself, but that would technically be a conflict of interest seeing as I voted above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Kabir

Article has not been updated in two years and this case does not seem to particularly stand out from the thousands of gay men thrown into jail each year for sodomy. Not notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough to make international news and to have articles on 2 other Wikipedias. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It only made international gay news, lasted approximately a day, and nothing has happened since. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted" and WP:N: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." The potential sources [38] consist of a few newspaper articles written when he was arrested in July 2005, a trickle as they awaited trial, and again in December 2005 when they were acquitted (AccessMyLibrary always shows their date as 1 January 2007, but in fact the date on their article is 6 December 2005). No coverage since then; his case didn't change anything in Nigeria and has not been demonstrated to possess any larger significance. cab (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only because, unlike the other thousands, this one made international attention. The "Mail & Guardian" [39] had and article, so it had at least a tiny bit of non-gay press. As far as the timeline goes, notability is not temporary. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless updated "rosecutors were unable to provide any witnesses and have been given until August 3 [2005] to find corroborating evidence of the crime, during which time the two men will remain in prison." This is 2008.Something should be known about their fate by now. If there is no further information, there isnt enough permanent content. DGG (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Nite Show

Procedural nomination only. Another editor prodded the article. Eastmain (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for any confusion regarding my removal of the {{Afd}} tag from the article. The editor placed a {{Prod}} tag first, and I didn't see a corresponding WP:AFD entry, so I figured the {{Prod}} would suffice. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This show appears to be wholly non-notable. Deserves {{speedy}} deletion, but I have been canvassed to delete by an editor who has tagged the article, and am therefore reluctant to take individual action. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedy too - the references to "the boys" every few words and the arguable BLP violations suggest a primary-sourced rant which has no place on an encyclopaedia, especially given the non-notable nature of the topic. Orderinchaos 16:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Christ

No notability, probably self-promoting or idolatry. This guy never won a great championship and he is just 234th-best.

All articles writen in other langues were made by Faberka or any germany IP.

In English [40], [41], [42], [43], [44],

[45], [46]

In Germany [47], [48]
In Portuguese: [49] and IP 88.66.58.212, 88.66.9.102.
In Arabic: [50], [51], [52] and [53]
Danish[54], [55], [56], [57] e [58]

In French [59].

and so on. All those article look like machine translation. FeMoL (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in any language. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably self-promoting: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Nico Christ. CheckUser? Tosqueira (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Crown Affair 2

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The film article can be recreated when principal photography begins. Steve ^{T • C} 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMDB says the film begins shooting this month but I find no confirmation of that. This story suggests that the star, Brosnan, is working on another film first which does not begin shooting until February, so presumably production of this has been pushed back some months. In any case we should delete until we confirm shooting has begun per policy--no rush here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with no prejudice against the recreation of the article when shooting begins. The writers' strike is particularly a major factor preventing current projects from entering production for a late 2008/early 2009 release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It can be recreated at a later date. Bláthnaid 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescreatu

The nominator of this article, 208.131.130.235 (talk · contribs), says "non-notable website, unencyclopedic". Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It certainly has an internet presence, but it fails WP:WEB because I can find no reliable source that mentions it at all. Most mentions are either the site itself, or sites that permit the user to control the content. The site does claim close to 40,000 members, which does tend to suggest notability, but again, I can't find a disinterested source to back this up. Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not presently shown to be notable. Until subject is demonstrably significant, an article would all too readily be used to promote the subject. —SlamDiego_←T 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, I do urge the nominator to make shorter nomination statements next time, to save the sanity of our editors, or whatever is left of it. Kurykh 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarish language

A "Romani community called the Tarish people" does not exist, nor is there a "dialect of Shelta" or of Angloromani or Para-Romani called "the Tarish language". The article is based on a hoax and should be deleted.

The notion of a "Tarish language" goes back to Patrick R. Saucer who in a book published in 1999 (The Children of Wisdom: An Introduction to the Tarish Rite Apostolic Church, 1525-1999, Universal Publishers, [60]) claimed to be "bishop" of a certain invisible "Tarish Rite Apostolic Church", founded, according to him, in the 16th century in England by Elizabeth Barton and John Fisher. This is of course pure phantasy, nowhere confirmed or even discussed by historians of this very well documented episode of English history.

Nevertheles, according to Saucer, catholic churchmen and scholars persecuted by Henry VIII for being members of this secret church, created the "Tarish language" as a "dialect of Shelta" by adding their own artificial inventions to the the secret language of the English "criminal classes". Saucer does not supply any further linguistic specifications of this "holy language", "chosen language", "language of the angels" (except the word "domina" for Maria), nor does he link it in any way wiht Romani or Roma communities.

When this present WP article was first proposed for deletion in November 2004 (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tarish_language), Saucer, contacted via email by some WP users, admitted to not having been aware of the fact that Shelta is the traditional language of Irish Tinkers rather than of criminals or "nomadic peoples in Great Britain", yet he claimed to have found out in the meantime that the "Tarish people" had been Spanish Zincali gypsies from Tartessia migrated to England and then influenced by followers of Elizabeth Barton. Which means that he now tried to link his invention with the myths surrounding the biblical Tarshish (identified by some with Tartessos/Tartessia in Spain) on the one hand, and with possible historical relations between Romani groups in Spain (Kalé, "black people") and speakers of Angloromani in Great Britain, on the other.

On these grounds, WP users assuming Saucer to be a reputable source (the article had even misrepresented him as a bishop of the Anglican Church!), tried to improve the article by conflating his earlier understanding of a "Tarish language" with notions of Angloromani, turning the earlier pure phantasy of this article into its present mixture of phantasy (regarding "Tarish") and facts (about Angloromani). Saucer, author of two books on his "invisible church" and possibly its only member, is of no encyclopedic relevance, or at least his phantasies about "Tarish language" and "Tarish people" are not sufficiently relevant for deserving an own WP entry.

It is due mostly to Wikipedia that Saucer's hoax about "Tarish language" and "Tarish people", which otherwise would have gone unnoticed like the rest of his book, has gained wide distribution and even scholarly credit. It was picked up on 24 November 2004 by a certain Lilith adding an article "Tarish language" to the Urban Dictionary, and, on that same day, by an anonymous IP creating the WP article Tarish, at this time still without a reference to Saucer, which was then added on the next day by User:Historia (signing also as "Ms. Greenberg", most likely the same person as Lilith) when she created the page on "Tarish language" and added a few more phantasies of her own both to this article and to the disambiguation article Tarish (see [61], later deleted by herself when she left WP).

User:Iota who was certainly familiar with matters Irish but somehow took this wild goose for a real bird added it to the article Irish Travellers ("Some argue that the Irish Travellers are descended from another nomadic people called Tarish"), and from there it was translated with some additional inventions or misunderstandings to other Wikipedias (namely French and German). The French version (turning the Tarish into "another nomadic people in Ireland": "un autre peuple nomade d'Irlande") was even picked up by a recent relatively scholarly printed publication, Christian Bader, Yéniches: Les derniers nomades d'Europe (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2007), who, in a short chapter devoted to Irish Tinkers, turned the Tarish people even into "preceltic" nomades ("Les Pavee ... revendiquent des origines préceltiques et se disent issus d'un groupe de nomades appelés Tarish" p.104).

So "bishop Saucer's" phantasy, transformed and diffused by Wikipedia, has finally been well received in the world of scholarly publications! If you read German, please see my more detailed analysis of this story in the German WP: [62]. --Otfried Lieberknecht (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've seen shorter nomination speeches than this at a political convention. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I dunno, Bill Clinton could probably beat it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, it does address in detail the objection that could have been raised by editors such as myself, who can and did find the first book, and might well have gone on to find the second. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's long-winded rationales. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right, sorry for the length. The short version is: this article is based on a hoax published in 1999 by Saucer (and slightly modified via email in November 2004 during the WP delete discussion), reproduced in November 2004 with additional inventions by user Historia, then changed by other users who tried their best to make sense of it. There is no "Tarish language", neither as a dialect of Romani or Para-Romani (I have checked a few standard works by Matras, Bakker and others, plus the ROMLEX project at the Univ. of Graz [63]), nor as a dialect of Shelta (Saucer himself admitted to this, and I too have found no evidence that "Tarish" was ever used as a name for Shelta or for another secret/ingroup-language).
  The only scholarly reference that I have found (to Tarish as a "preceltic" people) is in Christian Bader, and he is adopting the info that he found in the French WP, and which in turn had been translated (and transformed) from the English WP. We should delete this nonsense, before it will create even more confusion. --Otfried Lieberknecht (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is becoming a problem in verifiability. Other people take our articles and regurgitate the information in things of their own that they publish (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pea Ridge, Florida for example) that editors then take to be reliable sources that support the articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userbar, for example). Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: article is likely a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Though convoluted, this has all the appearances of a WP:HOAX, and should go. Evidence to the contrary would, of course, be given due weight - but I can find no such evidence at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom., seems reasonably certain to be some kind of self-published hoax. The language can't be simultaneously a kind of Romani and a version of Shelta; Shelta is originally a sort of back-slang or Pig Latin style transformation of Irish, while Romani is an Indo-Iranian language, originally not too dissimilar from other contemporary Indian languages, that took on a lot of other vocabulary during the course of its speakers' travels. Both languages are used as sources of cant vocabulary with the syntax of the majority language where they are spoken. So it seems implausible. The hoax itself may be notable, in an article describing it as such. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The hoax itself might be notable" was my own first thought - it could be better to keep an article clearly saying that "Tarish" is a hoax. But so far no indication that the hoax itself is notable: google only gives Saucer once, Lilith once, and a dozen wikipedia mirrors. Nothing on google news, and only Saucer's book on google books. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo.com.au

This article is on a non-notable website and appears to have been created by the company's founder to advertise the company, though the prose has since been cleaned up (User:Masini appears to be the same person as the company's founder, James Masini, and has been cautioned for creating an article on himself which was speedy deleted and adding spam links to other articles). The only cited claim to notability is that the website won the 'SmartCompany.com' 2007 Top Website of the Year award in 2007. However, as smartcompany.com was founded in 2007 (source: [64]) the award is not a "a well-known and independent award" which WP:WEB calls for to establish notability and a Google search of the award does not turn up many meaningful hits [65]. Moreover, the purpose of the award is "to recognise a site that might only be a few months old but has potential to grow into a much larger business" (source: [66]) so it seems to fall under WP:CRYSTAL for our purposes. The other claim to notability is that the site was "nominated for the Deloitte Tech Fast 50" but this isn't cited and only being nominated for an award doesn't establish notability. Neither of the other two criteria at WP:WEB are met as the article lacks reliable sources (a Google search [67] turns up only one RS [68] and it's a soft interview with Mr Masini which doesn't evaluate or independently confirm any of the claims he makes about the site) and the website seems to be a stand-alone site. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and nom Doc Strange (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just (belatedly) checked the deletion log and noted that this article was previously speedy deleted twice on 19 January for being blatant advertising. However, an attempt to re-speedy it on 20 January was turned down by User:W.marsh and the article does contain a cited claim of notability, albeit what I think is a very weak one, so I'll leave it to a neutral admin to decide if it should be re-speedied. I'd also suggest SALTing the article to prevent its recreation if it is deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nicely worded AfD Nick (sorry I just read and commented on another that someone else created which made my eyes spin). I don't have a general problem with COI on these type of articles normally providing that they meet the guidelines. In this case (at this stage) it doesn't so I have to agree exactly with your nomination. --VS ^talk 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. It may also be necessary to salt, based on what the nominator has said. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. There is a (weak) claim to notability so not a speedy claim. To my mind this is also borderline WP:SPAM -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Barely out of speedy territory, but definitely not notable. Salt becaue of repeated posting. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nick Dowling's findings in the deletion log. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per nom, non-notable advert. I tagged it for speedy-delete and was overruled. So be it, we followed Wikipolicy, which I fully support. It's time now to delete this article once again. Is there something we can do to prevent it from being created yet again in the future? Truthanado (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optometry Admission Test

At present this is a list of the examination sylabus and other directory stuff. Even if cleaned up, I doubt whether it would be qualify for an article in its own right. (And the inclusion of the words "in the United States" would not have gone amiss.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. looks like a copy-and-paste. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but gut the copy-and-paste (copyvio?). Needs to be like Medical College Admission Test. JJL (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic, but rewrite to eliminate spammy quality. I agree that it looks like cut and paste, but I have my doubts that it's really a copyvio. Presumably the purveyors of the test would want the publicity. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, no reliable sources Secret ^account 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frances M Hendry

While from what I can find on Google, this person may be notable, but the current article seems to be an autobiography, thus I am not sure whether WP:V, WP:NOR, etc are there. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable author, 16 books published (search on Frances Hendry on Amazon) and awards received. If we remove or verify the sentence that mentions "Nairn Drama Club" we have probably taken care of the WP:V problem. Also, I added a couple references. —Noah 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to check for duplicates, see -> Frances_Mary_Hendry. Redirect to existing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I'd never heard of her, and 16 titles means nothing if they're with a vanity press, but Canongate Books and Oxford University Press are pretty reputable (to put it mildly), and it seems she's been translated into Dutch, Danish and Spanish. It is a problem that the article is currently as good as unsourced, but the sources must be out there somewhere - it's an issue for editing, not deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links that User:Noah Salzman added to the article show her notability. Definite WP:COI problems here, but that is not a reason to delete. Bláthnaid 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ignoring single-purpose accounts Secret ^account 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice-nine fusion

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: serious vote stacking concerns here, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldnoah. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the creator's additions to the Ice-nine article were repeatedly reverted, he added them to a new article Ice-nine fusion claiming supposed consensus at the talk page. Topic is sufficiently covered by strangelet. Delete; merge with strangelet at best. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not about the fictional Ice nine from Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano, nor about the strangelet in general, but about a a physicist's speculation (in Scientific American) as to how strangelet theory would permit the creation of something analogous to "Ice nine". It probably doesn't belong in either article, but it can be referred to (with a link) in both articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ This is a pedagogical analogy/allusion---I hesitate to call it even a neologism---for Strangelet#Danger of strangelets: catalyzed conversion to strange matter. It's exactly the same phenomenon, and it's better explained in that article than in this one. The "ice-nine" thing is certainly not a term of art in the community. Add a link to Wilczek's SciAm article to strangelet and maybe mention that he called it ice-nine fusion, but don't try to salvage this content. I recommend keeping the redirect just in case somone stumbles across the SciAm article first, and uses that term to search. Bm gub (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN neologism. I can't even find Google evidence for "ice-nine fusion" or "ice-9 fusion" being alternate names for strangelet catastrophes. There are zero non-WP google hits for those phrases. It's very nice that someone is fond of the analogy, and it's not a bad analogy, but it's not WP-worthy. At best it could (someday) become an alternative name for strangelet disasters, in which case it would be worth a redirect. But it isn't yet.Bm gub (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created at the suggestion of "Wyatt Riot", who continuously monitors the "ice-nine" page. Another party [NOT myself] kept editing that page to add material regarding non-fiction usage of the term "ice-nine" along the lines suggested by Frank Wilczek in his widely published Letter to SciAm. Wyatt Riot kept deleting/reverting that other party, stating quite clearly that he wanted to keep the page as relating directly to the fictional usage of the term as in Vonnegut's novel only. Wyatt Riot then suggested to that other party that he should add a disambiguation if he wanted to post material that was non-fictional usage of the "ice-9" term. I read through those posts, and took up Wyatt Riot's suggestion, and created the "ice-nine fusion" page, so as to distinguish it from "ice-9" freezing of water. The term "ice-nine" has in fact been adapted from the sci-fi literature [Vonnegut's novel] to now apply to most any kind of runaway chain reaction that converts something into more of itself. Wyatt Riot does not have a monopoly on the term, or copyright to the term. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have a separate page for ice-nine fusion, and if anyone wants to set up a page for some other type of ice-nine reaction other than fusion, they too should be free to do so. Oldnoah (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
- Comment: I advised User:Homocion (or anyone, rather) to create an article like this if there were sufficient references to prove its notability and after reading various policy pages on Wikipedia. (I believe the first criteria was met, not the second.) But that doesn't make this page exempt from deletion for any number of reasons. Anyone can create a page, after all, but if it doesn't fall within Wikipedia guidelines or if the community decides that it should be deleted or changed, then that's going to happen. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ice-nine" has entered the language as a term for disasterous conversion scenarios as witnessed by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczec's letter to the editor of Scientific American in 1999 that used the term to describe the scenario that was the subject of my March 2000 Web page "The Strange Matter of Planetary Destruction". RickWagnerPhD (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) : Note: This comment was posted in the discussion section and copied here by me. Oldnoah (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
delete This is ridiculous we already got enough information about dangers of negative strangelets on the main strangelet article. Not to mention it maybe a confusion bwteen this article and Ice-nine article. Also in my opinion the term "Ice-9 fusion should be changed to "catalyzed conversion" When talking about this doomsday scenario. Not everyone watches sci-fi shows :) 116.240.192.120 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice-9 is a physical process that must be defined in a good encyclopedia. Wyatt and me had agreed to disambiguate the term from ice-9 and make an article apart. As i see another wikipedians have done the job i suggest to KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bm gub, only exists on wikipedia per this google search, and can find nothing else in a wider search. Add a line at most to Strangelets. ^Khukri 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page provides far more information and citation than the "strangelet" page. Deletion would remove valid information. Oldnoah (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - "contains valid information" is not grounds for keeping an article; if I put two paragraphs of modern linguistic scholarship into an article on Discourse Analysis of the "Proto-Klingon" Invented By Bobby, Age 15, the article is still deletable. In any case, the article does not quite contain more information; it contains the same information in a lengthier essay-like style. Some of this information is wrong (the AGS made many particles with strangeness > 1, whereas the article asserts that it made only lambdas) and the rest of it is overkill for an encyclopedia article. Bm gub (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have corrected the statement about the AGS making only Lambda's with one strange quark to indicate that other particles are made with a few strange quarks. Isn't it better to correct, than to simply delete? I've gone through numerous other articles [not related to strangelets per se, but to nuclear physics] and cleaned up a lot of the language. Should I instead be deleting the articles because I find a mistake? Gee, I'll bet that would be a basis to delete half of Wikipedia, if one want's to nit-pic every technical mistake. I believe it's best to have all of the information in one single article; the other pages aren't about ice-nine fusion per se, but about other topics that indirectly relate to ice-nine fusion; so it should not be deleted.
Delete As several editors have stated, the correct parts of this article are just a repetition (with exactly the same references) of the relevant parts of the strangelet article. Moreover, the term "ice-9 fusion" has not been used anywhere in the reputable physics literature, so it is not clear why this article is needed. Dark Formal (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Having corrected the misstatement about only Lambdas being created at the AGS, I believe the rest of the article is now correct. While some of the references are the same as under "strangelets", there are many more references here to relevant information about ice-nine fusion not contained in the "strangelet" article. Deletion eliminates viable, valuable information. The term "ice-nine" fusion is a disambiguation term. I'm open to other suggestions, but this is the best term for the subject.
Delete - This is exactly the sort of physics original research that WP:OR warns against. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not original research. It is well-referenced and does not interject personal point of view, or original thought. It is well established that there have been dozens to possibly a hundred or more scientific searches for strangelets. It is well established that some theories of strangelets show a runaway fusion potential. These theories and experiments have been well documented in the scientific literature. If you need more citations, then show the areas where you need more citations. Don't just delete; use the citation link. Those seeking to delete the article are the same parties who were engaged in heavy editing/deletion of relevant material in the "strangelet" page, attempting to impose a biased view of strangelet research and concerns within the science community. We need balance. Oldnoah (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - No one is proposing to delete strangelets, which is a good article. No one is proposing to delete runaway conversion scenarios, on which there is a good article subsection. No one is proposing to remove a balanced amount of references from those articles. We are proposing to delete this extra article on "ice-nine fusion", a neologism. Please provide documentation that "ice-nine fusion" is a term (not just an analogy) actually used by someone. Bm gub (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (The above arguments convinced me.) Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. Shortcuts:WP:IARWP:IGNORE If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." from neologisms links posted by Wyatt Riot. In other words, they are not RULES, but guidelines. Having a single page that describes ice-nine fusion, when the other pages [Large Hadron Collider, Strangelet, Quarks, etc.] that touch on the subject would definitely improve Wikipedia, and thus the page should remain. It's not like its an eyesore, or physically cumbersome. It provides a more in-depth definition of what ice-nine fusion is, which is a subject of intense importance to many people. If persons don't want to read it, they certainly don't have to. Why is there this intense pressure to delete information about strangelet fusion not available on the other pages? see: Wikipedia:common sense and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Oldnoah (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is highly disputed in the wikipedia community and there is no such thing as common sense in physics. 58.178.154.82 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there have been objections that too much material is being added to the strangelet page pertaining to ice nine fusion. For this reason I believe this new page is needed. Transcept (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Transcept— Transcept (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Deserves a mention somewhere that Wilczek used this term to describe something to do with strangelets, but the subject is not sufficiently notable for its own article. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD A7/CSD G11 refers. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Muhammad

Article does not show notability other than as a TV cameraman and mid-level produce. Article refers to I in one part and creators name is the same as the subject's web page. I am unable to find sources indicating sufficient notability for an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again another media personal article with only IMDb as a source. And again for my reason, per controversial issue about IMDb reliability, I'd say delete if there is no other non-trivial independent and reliable sources per notability guidelines. Dekisugi (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In fact, I'd even go so far as to argue Speedy Delete. Read the article closely, and then notice the username of the primary editor of the article. And the entire remaining balance of the edits seem to be occuring from an IP based in the UK, which is also significant given the article subject. Seems like a potential vanity project. DJBullfish (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yup - the article switches from third to first person at one point. Seems to be a vanity project clear-cut DJBullfish (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Borderline speedy as spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & Redirect to a list article - if anyone wants to do this, feel free, otherwise I will action it shortly. BLACKKITE 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chumley Huffington

This article and the below articles are only partially sourced using individual episodes and fansite info. No secondary sources are provided on any to establish real world notability. Mr.Z-man 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The below articles are included in this nomination:

Chazz Princeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blair Flannigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bastion Misawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Axel Brodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Atticus Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aster Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adrian Gecko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Honestly, I think the best way to go is to merge all the GX character articles into one List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX major characters article. Barring that, my vote is Weak Keep them all since they are all featured characters in the series; I'm open to other ideas, though. JuJube (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind mergeing UNLESS we can find sources describing the development of the characters. Then we can upgrade to keep. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Clawed One (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: agree with JuJube: merge all of the nominated articles into a single List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX major characters article. Mh29255 (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of character article, per the guidelines of WP:FICT. I'm not finding, on a quick search, much to support the independent notability of these characters (though some of the non-reliable sources suggest that Chazz might be discussed enough by reviewers to justify his article), which means they fail the notability requirements of WP:FICT. Delete is, as always, the last resort for this sort of thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For character reception among viewers, fansites are perhaps a better option than they appear to be. ALL these characters have been discussed in depth on concerned sites that DO voice the opinions of the viewers. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally fansites are considered to NOT be Wikipedia:Reliable sources - We have some standards regarding that. Official websites, websites of publishers, and newspaper reviewers are considered to be reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly Strong Keep per WhisperToMe. It is hard to source notable TV characters while keeping it encyclopedic in tone. Merging these articles will make them suffer like it always does by removing almost everything or will simply be the pages (perhaps barring deck info, images) stuck onto one big list. Both options go against an encyclopedia so the best bet is to keep. However, Chumley's own article is forgivable to merge into the main list, but definitely Keep the others. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bowsy, I said that it would be a keep if we found the sources - Well, certainly I am not in favor of deletion, but I am okay with merging them into one articles *unless* we can find nuggets of developmental info. It may be good to find a few secondary sources, but IMO what really counts is adding "real world" information, i.e. information about how the "real world" was involved with the character. If you find the creators of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX debating character traits, by all means that is "real world" info. Having articles with nothing but plot summary seems to go against the encyclopedic style. This info has to exist somewhere. Even if we merge now we can always separate them later once we find good info. Anyhow, Wikipedia's standards regarding fictional characters have changed. Please see: Wikipedia:FICT - FICT is disputed, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with him though, I've seen it happen, the articles get merged and lose most of their content, and eventually someone discusses splitting them back into seperate articles. Or, they keep their content and the page gets too long, and again splitting them back up is proposed. The Clawed One (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles can be split up once the sections become long enough as per WP:FICT - But plot summary no longer qualifies as justifiable material for splits. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is PLENTY of characterization info on the web so a split is ENTIRELY justifiable. The problem being that it appears the creators of the articles got too involved in plot summaries. There is still plenty on characterization. I have sen it myself. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I think all the articles are in need of a good overhaul. One possibility is shifting all the plot content to the main arc articles, and stubbing and merging the character ones and only discuss their personality and their relationships to other characters. Explaining both does seem kind of redundant and it's more comprehensive to have it in in. On another note, it's nice to see the big three here. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am in complete agreement. There is LOADS on personalities/relationships for most of these characters ie. all but Huffington but particularly Adrian/Echo, Blair/Jaden, etc. There is also lots of info on the actual personalities. The plot sumaries should be cut and the articles stubbed, so as to encourage the addition of this material. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a combination article on the characters, as usual, unless perhaps one or two of them are particularly notable. This should have bee dealt without outside AfD. DGG (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to a list article. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should not merge the articles, as that would mean deleting all the past history of those pages in case we want to go back. We can always choose to merge later, but once we do, all that history is lost. Furthermore, many of these are very significant characters. I mean, Chumley/Hayato is justified, but all the others play major roles, and some, like Atticus/Fubuki are starting to get major development as of recently, in this 'Darkness' arc. (Yalens)

(Yalens) —Preceding comment was added at 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Gnan garra 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jitterbug_Wireless

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jitterbug Wireless

fairly blatant advertisement/reads like ad copy/does every cellphone deserve its own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Amazing (talk • contribs)

Keep and cleanup. GreatCall/Jitterbug has a national reach and plenty of WP:RS coverage to pass WP:CORP and fix POV problems. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup (I'll see what I can do). Notable MVNO marketed to a particular market segment. Present article reads like an advert, but with cleanup and sources, it will do fine. --MCB (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, beyond repair. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G11. Sure, it can be cleaned up but that applies to most advert pages. No sources here to establish notability nor to underpin verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some of the sources available: Fortune, Business Week, NYT, Wash. Post, ABC News. GreatCall/Jitterbug is a national MVNO carrier with continuous WP:RS coverage since it came out 2 years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is noteworthy and has significant press coverage. I took a stab at neutralizing the language and added in some of the cites supplied by Gene93k, also further specifics.--Wageless (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2008 Logo Certification and application compatiblity

Delete a curious combination of promotional article for Windows 2008 and a Howto guide. Mayalld (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Doc Strange (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly promotional "how to". Tim Ross·^talk 10:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how-to article, smells spammy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as how-to. The misspelling in the title doesn't help the credibility, either. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion below indicates increased notability and availability of reliable, secondary sources since the last discussion. The article has also been improved to include better sources information, thus satisfying the verifiability requirements. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Sky

This page was taken to DRV with a result of userfying. No discussion about bringing it to the mainspace was had. This is almost identical to the copy that keeps being deleted. There are still no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Smashville^BONK! 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Madison) was closed on 26 September 2007, with the consensus being that minor achievements on the independent wrestling circuit and being an unsuccessful contestant on WWE's Diva Search do not make for notability. However, since September 2007, "Velvet Sky" is now on the roster of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, appearing regularly in their shows and pay-per-views, and there seems to be broad consensus that this is sufficient notability to justify a Wikipedia article. Hence the calls in the DRV discussion to overturn the original deletion. --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the third time the article had been brought to DRV. There is nothing new to make this person notable that hasn't been presented before. --Smashville^BONK! 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was the first time that a draft was created and presented to DRV as a proposal. To be honest the previous userspace version would probably have been moved to article space instead of being deleted if it had been presented to DRV rather than being used as an end-run around the AfD (as discussed at MfD) --Stormie (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it was salted there was a discussion to unsalt (kinda has to be don't there?) the discussion was based on the recent developments in the notability of this person. It was decided to unsalt, ergo that the article has enough notability to warrant an article. Is the original article deleted on September 26th almost identical to this one? maybe parts are but the TNA section is new and it's through her work in TNA that she's achieved notability, so it doesn't matter if the early parts are the same (especially since we can't change history). MPJ-DK (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is 95 percent identical other than cleanups and the addition of one sentence to a page that has been repeatedly shot down at DRV and was finally deleted at MfD. There are still no secondary sources and there is still nothing of consequence to make this person notable. If an admin would look at the deleted version of User:ThisDude62/sandbox, they would see this. --Smashville^BONK! 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entire "Total Nonstop Action" section is new, since it all happened after it was deleted originally. And since she's gained notability what she's done before warrants inclusion, the past hasn't changed her previous accomplishments haven't changed. I see plenty of sources independent of this person listed. It's also generally accepted that working regularly (in a non-jobber role) and making regular PPV apperances for the second biggest promotion in the US makes the person notable MPJ-DK (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should have been more specific...there are no reliable secondary sources. And the majority of the TNA was in the version presented at DRV in November. --Smashville^BONK! 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Secondary sources are generally preferable to primary ones, it's true, but are you also arguing that TNA news releases are not a reliable source when it comes to who is active in their promotion? --Stormie (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Stormie and MPJ. Nikki311 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but per Smashville's reasoning, I would agree, so I'm mainly neutral. (Note:This isn't a vote, it's my reasoning for deletion). --Solumeiras (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Stormie and MPJ. --Naha|^(talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Subject is notable by being an active member of a major wrestling promotion. Subject appears on television almost weekly. Furthermore, article is notable. What else is needed?LessThanClippers (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article can be improved and I'm sure a decent secondary source can be found. A few problems with an article are no reason to delete it again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article can be improved, and her notability has increased since she started with TNA. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know too much about wrestling, but she appears to be notable from what's provided here. Terraxos (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article asserts notability and is supported by reliable secondary sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no point tagging this article for deletion, when there's plenty of other similar articles about indy wrestlers around that are poorer-sourced then this, but which haven't been targeted the way this one has been. The article for this person has sufficient notability. Haleth (Haleth) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.47.250 (talk) [reply]
Comment. I see a bunch of keeps, but I still don't see any reliable secondary sources. TNA runs a business based on fictional storylines. Their website is not even remotely a reliable secondary source. The article still fails WP:V. --Smashville^BONK! 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Information published by wrestling franchises has been accepted as a source for a number of Featured Lists, see List of WWE Intercontinental Champions for instance. I think you're holding a minority opinion of you don't feel that a franchise is a reliable source for fictional/kayfabe events and storylines within their own franchise. --Stormie (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened so as to establish consensus without doubt

-SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have already voted about to keep the article, but I wanted to address Smashville's incorrect statement that there are no reliable secondary sources. SLAM! Wrestling is a reliable source. Online World of Wrestling is another quality source. I have also added Solie's Title Histories, a reliable secondary source, to the article. The primary sources also lend credibility to the article, as wrestling promotions alone are able to consider their results official or unofficial (for example, The Rockers cannot be considered former WWF Tag Team champions despite the fact that they beat the champions for the belts). As a result, official results are often best taken from the promotions themselves. At this point, the claim that the article does not meet WP:V is not a legitimate argument, as the reliable sources in the article show otherwise. While I will agree that the article, in some of it's previous incarnations, should have been deleted, this version does not. The subject has firmly established her notability since the original article was deleted, and nominating this article for deletion based on the fact that it was deleted in the past makes no sense. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other keeps. I can't say anything new.Undeath (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. not an attack article, not an hoax, discuss a merge in talk Secret ^account 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson University football recruiting scandal

This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history. Thör ^hammer 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Comment: False (fabricated?) information This article is almost 1600 words, 1300 of which are essentially "fluff" or minutiae slightly doctored up from an NCAA infractions report (is anyone ever actually going to read those 1300 words? - please use WP:COMMON SENSE - if not, try to read it!) . Factual, yes, but fluff nonetheless (see WP:NOT#INFO - Statistics and News Reports). Of the remaining 300 or so words, the most important statement is "Clemson is the first and only football program to be placed on probation the year after winning a national title." The only problem with this statement is: It's totally false (which pretty much makes adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag ineffective). Even a cursory amount of research by the author would have revealed this. Perform a LexisNexis search or even cross reference the College Football Data Warehouse with the NCAA Legislative Database and in a few minutes you can easily find at least nine other instances in which an NCAA Division I Football team was reprimanded by the NCAA or placed on probation for violations preceding the team winning a National Championship (see list of instances below - Probations After an NCAA Division I Football National Championship). At least two of these factually refute the statement made by the author (Auburn in 1957, Texas in 1963). The difference in the remainder of the instances are largely investigation timing issues on the part of the NCAA Infractions Committee. So not only is the statement factually false (not merely inaccurate, but patently false) based on the two specific accounts, but the remaining accounts also make the statement semantically irrelevant. And this is the single most important statement the author attempts to make in the entire article. This statement was either made up by the author or quoted from an unreliable source (which the author failed to cite). I am guessing that this was an attempt to create the illusion of notability(?), besmirch the reputation of Clemson University, or both.

The reputation of Clemson University was besmirched quite adequately by the 70 documented violations of numerous NCAA regulations, the inaccurate statement (removed by myself) really doesn't add to this fact. ViperNerd (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 1300 words on individual infractions were deleted by User:B due to copyright issues. That pretty much leaves this article as a stub, and when you consider the false material just discussed there isn't really anything left.--Thör ^hammer 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probations After an NCAA Division I Football National Championship*
Team	NCAA Championship/Probation Information
Notre Dame	National Championship in 1953 - NCAA violations in football and basketball and NCAA reprimand after football National Championship in 1953
Ohio State	National Championship in 1954 - NCAA probation for violations occurring between 1951 and 1955
Oklahoma	National Championship in 1955 and 1956 - NCAA probation for two years beginning in 1955.
Oklahoma	National Championship in 1985, NCAA violations and probation for three years beginning in 1988/1989 for violations occurring in 1984-1986. The initial NCAA inquiry was in 1985.
Auburn	National Championship in 1957 - NCAA probation for three years beginning in 1958
Texas	National Championship in 1963 - NCAA probation for 1 year starting in 1964 for recruiting violations
Clemson	National Championship in 1981 - NCAA probation for 2 years starting in 1982
University of Miami	co-National Championship in 1991, NCAA violations and probation for violations occurring from 1985 through 1995 (probation started in 1995)
University of Washington	co-National Championship in 1991, 2 years probation starting in 1994 for infractions dating from 1987 though 1992
Florida State University	National Championship in 1993, 1 year NCAA probation beginning in 1996 for activities from 1992 to 1994
*Disclaimer - there are potentially others, this was not an exhaustive search (and please forgive any minor errors - I did this on the fly)

Comment: Notability?: The next issue with this article (and potentially others like it) is its lack of notability. A quick search of the NCAA Legislative Database (referenced by the author in the article) reveals 236 "major infraction cases" in Division I football since the NCAA started keeping records on infractions in 1953. If a search is done on all Division I sports you will find 501 major infraction cases (596 major infraction cases in all NCAA sports divisions - an average of over 11 per year since 1953). In my recollection, only one has ever garnered sufficient pubic attention to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, and that one was the recruiting situation with Southern Methodist University in 1987 where the NCAA invoked the 'death penalty'. Anecdotally I think the public tends to remember the teams that win National Championships and pretty much lets the recruiting problems slide (kind of how we are with our presidents and interns - that would be WP:SARCASM ;) - cigar anyone?). Of the 596 cases mentioned, what exactly is the author saying that makes this one special (besides the false statement above)? I don't see it in the article. NCAA investigations and probations are very common things (kind of like speeding tickets for colleges) which would tend to make the subject non-notable. The University of South Carolina (apparently the school favored by the author) is currently serving a three year NCAA probation for violations in its own football program. Why not an article about that one, too? Apparently, the author feels that the probation of the rival school for only two years was more significant, which tends to make this article heavily POV (could this one be considered a candidate for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}? - this article appears to have been written only to disparage its subject). One interesting (rhetorical and common sense) question on notability here is: If you asked the fans of the teams winning National Championships whether they would trade in their National Championship trophy to erase the NCAA probation from their record, would they say YES? I would guess NOT.

If you approach the notability issue from the pure general notability guideline point of view, in my opinion the article fails to measure up for three reasons:

The topic has not received "significant coverage" in secondary sources (certainly none are listed by the author).
The number of "sources" covering the topic are limited (this is demonstrated by the lack of references listed by the author - one is the NCAA infraction report, the other is the NCAA press release detailing the infraction report).
There are no sources "independent of the subject" used as references in the article (note that I didn't claim that there were none available).

More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist.

Because of these notability shortcomings, I have also tagged the article with the {{notability}} template. There is little evidence that further work on this article will increase its notability, and certainly no indication that future coverage will do the same.

Comment: Bad Article Idea?: The next problem with this article stems from the numbers I mentioned above regarding NCAA infraction cases. Besides the lack of merit from the article truth, quality, and notability points of view, I think this article is a horrible idea from the NCAA Football Project point of view (can you imagine potentially having a new article each time a different NCAA infraction case comes up?) From WP:List of bad article ideas, there are several other points that might be instructive here. They are:

Another article on an existing topic - there is already adequate material to cover the topic in Carolina-Clemson Rivalry and 1981 Clemson Tigers football team. I think it was actually added by the author of this article.
Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about - who is really going to read those 1300 words of individual infractions? Seriously? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Any article written while in a highly emotional state or reflecting personal opinions (Wikipedia is not a blog) - See the material from an earlier deletion discussion, as the author is 65.188.38.31. Also consider the false statement made by the author above.
A new article to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough - again, there is already adequate material to cover the topic in Carolina-Clemson Rivalry and 1981 Clemson Tigers football team.

It would probably be a VERY, VERY good idea for some of the WikiProject College Football team members to chime in on this discussion (I will put an invitation on the project talk page). If this is the type of article that is going to be permitted, we are opening a Pandora's box of bad possibilities. This does not help the WikiPedia project at all.

NOTE: The edit history below for this editor and suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets is provided for use by the closing admin per WP:AFD guidelines, and we don't need to waste a lot of debate over the edit history when considering the deletion request.
Comment: Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?: One of the last points that needs to be considered here is the contribution history of the author (while assuming good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary). Normally, only the merits of the article are relevant in deletion discussions, but WP:AFD specifically states that "it is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." Reviewing the author's edit history it is clear that the author (who IS using a new user account) was previously represented by several IP addresses (either directly or as sockpuppet/meatpuppet) prior to registering for the User:ViperNerd account around 01/12/2008 and publishing this article. Some of those IP's are: 65.188.38.31, 65.188.37.65, 62.232.41.140, 66.56.149.230 201.155.32.234, 69.60.114.58, 89.96.176.162, and possibly 161.156.99.11. Combinations of these IPs have been blocked at least 6 times in a little over a month for edit warring, personal attacks, user space vandalism, disruptive edits, incivility, harassment, and general trolling. The most recent block expired on 01/14/2008 (you might notice that the author registered the new account and published the article before the expiration of his most recent IP block). When reviewing the contrib history, pay particular attention to 65.188.38.31 contribs in this deletion discussion. It is apparent from this discussion that this user did not create this article out of genuine desire to help the Wikipedia project. Perhaps he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Based on the use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets and the disruptive edit history, I would also suggest that this article be protected against re-creation. Again, I am reviewing the edit history of the author because WP:AFD states that it is acceptable to do so for the sake of the closing admin. It would be a good thing if this user could be brought to direct his time and energy to more productive tasks on Wikipedia, but he just isn't getting the point.

Given that any user can change their stripes, we have to make allowances that perhaps these IPs have registered to change their ways. The most recent edits of new User:ViperNerd don't reflect that this is the case. Three recent contribs included the following:

Vandalize Wiki like you did in the University of South Carolina article and your IP will be blocked. Grow up.
You do realize that it takes about one second to undo any childish vandalism you take your time to write? Get a life.
You got busted, Tater. Next time you vandalize you'll get blocked. Have a nice day.

One interesting (and humorous) point about the last edit comment is that it was directed at User:ClueBot (which was rolling back changes the author made to a semi-protected page with a new account). Pretty disruptive to harass the digital help, but I'm sure the Wiki-server won't complain about being called a "Tater". ("Tater" is a local term used disparagingly by some University of South Carolina fans against what they think are Clemson Tiger supporters).

Finally: WP:Harrassment: The final point that I will make here (whether it is taken in the context of the deletion debate or not regarding WP:AFD allowance for noting the contribution history of new users) is the harrassment issued from this user against other members of the Wikipedia community (and one in particular - and he doesn't deserve it). I haven't been contributing on Wikipedia all that long, but I can tell that there are some incredible people doing awesome things here, and they don't deserve it either. This author is a cyber bully who uses every opportunity to harass and Wikistalks those who make edits he disapproves of (including BOTs and Admins). He epitomizes the tendentious editor. If you are skeptical, please read these recent edits by the author:

Recent threatening/harassing/disruptive edit history for User:ViperNerd and associated sockpuppets/meatpuppets
I feel truly sorry for anyone who has a life as empty and pathetic as yours.
Keep apologizing, Tater. Couldn't help but notice since you were called out on it that you've tried to make it look like you care more about adding to Clemson's articles than violating the NPOV rule on Carolina's articles. Keep it up. You're being watched.
A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll register and get to work on that article alongside another about the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go register and get to work on the 1985 Clemson steroid scandal article and 1982 Clemson recruiting scandal article which will be factual, notable and well-documented. So I'm sure I won't have to worry about anyone deleting them for any reason. Oh, and I'll also mimic CobraGeek and place links to these 2 articles in EVERY OTHER Wiki article dealing with Clemson University, athletic-related or not.
Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. They have made their agenda on Wiki QUITE clear. I could write my own attack piece on Clemson and make it well-sourced, but I have no desire to do so, because that's not what Wiki is here for...last I heard.
Actually, what I think I'll do is this. I'll register and write my own article with well-sourced, notable information and title it Clemson University Football cheating scandal. Is that really what you want here? Because that's the only fair way to go. Is that seriously what you're saying this site should degenerate into?
POV additions by avowed Clemson fans aren't needed in a USC article. Take your hate to a sports message board, it isn't appropriate for Wiki.
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, you will be blocked from editing. JdeJ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am EDITING, take your bias away from articles that you clearly don't know the history about. You have clearly taken sides in this, and aren't suited to make any decisions regarding my edits. Removal of POV edit is clearly within Wiki rules, the added section to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article is IRRELEVANT to the subject being discussed. You lack knowledge of the subject matter to make a call in this case. If you continue to troll my edits, I will be forced to report your actions to an admin. Go find something more useful to do with your time on Wiki.
It's all about rubbing it in for this jerk.[69]

That pretty much makes the point clear, but there is alot more if you look. And this just keeps going on and on and on. The author pretty well confesses his intentions to generate this attack article at least four times in this recent edit history. I'm pretty sure there are few members of the Wiki community who would assume good faith on the part of this editor after viewing this contrib history. Is he disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Think about the time and energy wasted by reasonable, good faith editors and Admins having to deal with this constantly. It is possible for this editor to pull back from the brink, but he needs to realize the need first. --Thör ^hammer 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

Comment - Can I get the abridged version? --B (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Comment - Sure. Here it is from above: This is a confessed attack article, may meet the provisions of WP:CSD, but can also go to WP:AFD otherwise. Article has false (fabricated?) info intended to disparage its subject, is not otherwise notable, is inadequately sourced, has multiple problems relating to Wikipedia policy, and was generated by a newly registered account with significant history of edit wars, harassment, and disruptive sockpuppet/meatpuppet edit history.--Thör ^hammer 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus there is the issue of the 1300 copyrighted words on individual infractions from the NCAA report. Probably the worst article that I have seen on Wikipedia. Good catch on the copyright.--Thör ^hammer 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of this reads as a complaint - legitimate or otherwise against user: ViperNerd and if his editing style and other infractions are the main subject of your concern then your report belongs elsewhere. If the concern you are raising is that he is using sock-puppets in relation to this article then that is not immediately obvious. If he is using a sock or meat puppet elsewhere then that does not assist this AfD nomination. So in the interests of helping AfD editors and admins with this request can I ask that you look again at the article alone (forgetting your concern about the author) now that B has removed the copyvio material and in just a few words tell us in your opinion what exact parts of Clemson University football recruiting scandal are fabricated? The other points of inadequate sourcing (meaning there is some sourcing) and generation by a newly registered account do not justify deletion. I will look back in and decide to nominate keep or delete once I see that material.--VS ^talk 09:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, fabrication discussion in first paragraph at the top, above the first table. Thör ^hammer 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Okay thanks for your response which strongly suggests to me that this article should be kept on the basis that whilst there have been difficulties with it it does at this time remain a valid document that could easily be moulded into good shape; and could be expanded by interested editors.--VS ^talk 10:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks VS, for recognizing that we've got a person here who CLEARLY has a vendetta against an editor and not a reasonable, well-thought basis for deleting an article. The LONG diatribe against me composed above pretty much bears that out, I think. And we pretty much covered much of this ground in the AfD discussion of the USC steroid article. I was told OVER AND OVER, that reasons for writing an article are not important in the least when determining its inclusion in Wiki. This article is notable based on the sheer number of violations involved and well-sourced with only the NCAA infractions report (not copyrighted material) as a reference, though I'd be happy to add some newspaper refs if the consensus is that it would somehow help. Thanks.ViperNerd (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Secondary sources demonstrating notability would help. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations.

Bear with me on this one. Normally, I'm one of the loudest proponents of inclusionist thought when it comes to college football articles on Wikipedia. Until now, I didn't think there was a college football article that I wouldn't support when it came to a deletion debate. Until now.

On the surface, this would be a great subject for an article. You could construct it from contemporary news sources, histories of Clemson football (there are several), University and NCAA press releases on the subject, and generally cover the issue and put it into context. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been done. Again, normally that's not enough for me to write off an article. Things can be expanded, re-written, and generally improved. That's the importance of Wikipedia over a general encyclopedia.

For this article, however, there seems to be a great deal of "baggage" attached. We could get dragged into a long, drawn-out debate over whether it's worthy of inclusion, then about what should be included, discussions of sockpuppetry, attack articles, and the like, or we could just jump right into a compromise solution: Delete the article; there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and a rewrite would pretty much need to delete and start from the ground floor, anyway. To combat issues of notability, move the subject into a section of a general article about NCAA recruiting violations in football or some such thing. This way, an article could gradually be constructed from the ground up and eventually spun off into a separate article if and when it's good enough. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read the 3 or 4 disclaimers about the user edit history (above). This is included per WP:AFD policy for the benefit of the closing admin only. There is no need to debate that portion of the nomination here, only the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. Thör ^hammer 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User edit history wasn't an issue in the AfD of the USC steroid scandal article (as much "attack" as this one), so I fail to see how it is an issue here. Just because you clearly don't approve of me isn't a legitimate reason to get an article I wrote deleted.ViperNerd (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this AFD be rewritten (perhaps closed here and re-opened in a new version) to include only information about the article? Vipernerd (talk · contribs) is a new editor and is having problems figuring out how to contribute. In this edit I instructed him to add this article if the subject is "notable and documented". If those things are true, this cannot be an attack article. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edgarde, you must truly be a saint to phrase that the way you did. Can I quote you on it later? Thör ^hammer 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously, on the nom, I certainly wouldn't have a problem moving the user history to another location, it does seem to be getting into the conversation a little much, considering the number of disclaimers included above. As far as the article is concerned, it does not meet the notability guidelines for a standalone article and isn't well documented. The lack of documentation is a fixable thing, but the notability thing isn't - it isn't going to be more notable tomorrow than it is today, JMO. Thör ^hammer 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia guidelines require me to be nicer than I actually am. Collect some diffs for the user conduct issue, and file it away for future reference. However, Vipernerd could become a good editor in the future—the contributions made in this article seem worth keeping, only not in this form—and WP:BITEing him at this time would thwart the more desirable outcome. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Notability in secondary sources is not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1981 Clemson Tigers football team already makes a brief mention of this. I have no strong preference for merge targets. New York Times has a few articles that may be helpful in sourcing. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the nomination and the defense make it difficult to see what the problem is. Do I read this right? Delete the article because of an inaccuracy (it inaccurately stated that Clemson was the first football program to be sanctioned after winning a national championship)? That's it? That type of mistake can be fixed with something called "edit this page". No need to break out tables for big presentation. You don't need our permission to correct an inaccurate statement. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clemson Tigers football in a NPOV and supported and referenced fashion, as is typically done with this info on other WP:CFB articles. See Oklahoma Sooners football (a GA-class article) and search for "violations". MECU≈talk 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Good grief, that was a long, painful nom!! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a little long, but there were so many problems with this article...where to start, where to stop? Wiki is a lot faster than writing code for me (PB & VB), so it came together pretty quick. Thanks for taking the time to read through it though. --Thör ^hammer 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Attack page, no matter how you slice it or how long your nomination is. Also in before tl;dr. ViperSnake151 14:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no more an attack article than the one written by CobraGeek about the USC steroid scandal which was defended zealously despite his long history of anti-USC contribs/edits on Wiki. As I read over and over in the AfD discussion for that dubious article, it makes no difference WHY a person writes an article for Wiki, or WHO writes it, only that it be notable and well-sourced. This article is both. Public reports like the NCAA one excerpted in the article are NOT copyrighted, and are in fact written specifically for public consumption and distribution.ViperNerd (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Someone made this point: "More importantly than the general guideline is that notability is not temporary. I'm sure there was sufficient coverage of this at the time in 1982, but who was talking about it 5 or 10 years later (other than University of South Carolina fans) much less 25 years later. How long will those same fans be talking about their current NCAA football probation (since we are looking for balance/NPOV here)? And how notable is this one to the general public considering the other 595 major infraction cases? In Wikipedia's own words: "Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community." In this case that evidence does not exist." ALL OF THIS CAN ALSO BE STATED WITH REGARD TO THE USC STEROID SCANDAL. No one talks about it outside of the state of SC, and it is generally only brought up by Clemson fans in response to the mention of their years of cheating which landed them on probation. By the way, their probation is notable from the rest by the fact that it consisted of one of the largest lists of violations in NCAA history. So in the end I've got no problem with both of these article being deleted from Wiki, or both of them staying, it's the unbalance of having one without the other that is bothersome. Don't enforce a double standard. ViperNerd (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not about likes or dislikes and friends and foes. I may not like how this article is being built but that does not give me the right to delete it! I actually have nothing to do with this article but just averting edit wars when they happen, but please enough is enough. we wasting time discussing this, go back to editing. Igor Berger (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant season article I realize that's a rather specific vote, here's my logic (speaking generally): If there is some baseline notability (I don't think NCAA sanctions automatically are, usually the media will tip us off to what are "major/notable" infractions), then this might warrant mention somewhere. I don't think this should be merged into any general "Clemson Tigers football" article, because its about a very specific period (although a small statement in the relevant area of a larger history section would be acceptable). Beyond one sentence, it would make sense as a sub-section of a season article (possibly a sub-section under "legacy" or similar such post-season section). If it can be expanded (legitimately) to a good size, then it might warrant its own article linked back from the relevant season page. For now, I am against merging it into a general Clemson football article, but in support of merging it into a relevant season article. I am neutral on deleting it altogether. --Bobak (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, 1981 Clemson Tigers football team appears to be the season for which this team was placed on probation. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that is not completely accurate. The violations occurred over a period from 1977-1981, the probation was enforced through various means on the program during the 1982-1984 seasons. So it would be difficult to merge this article into just one season article. Also there is the issue of the probation which was placed on the program in 1990, I was planning to add a section to this article dealing with that. ViperNerd (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into relevant Clemson football-related articles as mentioned by other voters above. ↔NMajdan•talk 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was made in response to University of South Carolina steroid scandal, which certain editors objected to. Additionally, USC Trojans football makes no mention of the Reggie Bush scandal, and in the Reggie Bush article, there are only three sentences making any note of the recruiting scandal in which he was involved. Additionally, it seems that most of the effort is put forth in discrediting the 1981 National Title held by Clemson. It seems peculiar that the only years mentioned are 1977-1984, which would discredit the players that played in the national championship game (four years before the title, four years after). Zchris87v 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why an article was made is not grounds for deletion. Also, last I checked, Southern California has not been placed on probation by the NCAA for their recruiting of Reggie Bush, so I fail to see what that has to do with this. Additionally, most of the effort was placed into detailing the numerous violations that Clemson was found to have committed during a period from 1977-1982, people can draw their own inferences about the fact that the 1981 championship season was near the end of that period of cheating. But I'm glad a Clemson fan could join this discussion just to give us their predictable "delete" vote. ViperNerd (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX applies here, i.e. perhaps that information needs to be expanded in Reggie Bush. Also, since the Bush news is only 2 weeks old, the effect on USC Trojans football (if there will be any) may have not yet been felt, let alone made notable. None of that makes a case for deleting the Clemson University football recruiting scandal article. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Personally I don't think these types of infractions generally deserve their own articles except in rare cases such as the SMU death penalty case (which actually doesn't have an article) and should normally be handled in a section in University Mascots football but the subject does meet notability guidelines and reliable sources can be found so it certainly may stand as an individual article.
Although there are many bytes in this kitchen sink nomination, a large percentage are dedicated to a misplaced behavior report and refutation of a single errant statement in the article that does not represent a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the nominator misunderstands/mistates not temporary and claims via bullet point the topic has not received "significant coverage" in secondary sources and then immediately backtracks acknowledging that reliable sources certainly exist. AUTiger » talk 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am disappointed and, quite frankly, annoyed by the backstory of this article, its antecedent, and the editors of both articles that have chosen to make Wikipedia a battleground for their rivalry. As much as I want to AGF, I see no clean hands here. AUTiger » talk 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, let's wrap this up. Discussion seems to have tapered off, and the overall consensus seems to be keep/merge. Seeing how there is no single season article about Clemson football that this article can be tied into easily due to the two probations and years of violations, it would seem best to allow this article to stand on its own merits for now and allow editors to improve it, as they have been doing. I think a decision needs to be made and the AfD template removed. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's keep the debate open a while longer, please. Question: If the article is closed out to a merge where should it end up? Hopefully some continued debate can come up with a logical way to do that in a fashion that sets a good precedent for this potentially significant NCAA football issue going forward. So far the following possibilities have been mentioned above:

Potential solutions if AfD outcome is MERGE
Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations. - This solution certainly sounds good initially, but I wonder what the article ends up looking like when the number of cases mentioned above is taken into account(?). Could get nasty, could potentially be a very long page. There is currently already an article on the NCAA that includes rules violations and the Division I FBS institutions currently on probation (and the link is to the school article which I don't believe is the best target - I'll fix these). It is a good, brief, interesting article written in NPOV fashion, and it just calls it "Rules violations" instead of "recruiting scandal" or the like (so it would naturally encompass whatever the nature of the violations were). That part certainly won't satisfy anyone who is foaming at the mouth to make it an attacking style of article, so it sounds like a natural fit to add another section under Division I FBS institutions on probation and call it something like Past Division I probations. That could link to a general NCAA probation article that would consolidate all of the notable NCAA cases in one place (football, basketball, or whatever - a very tidy solution). One interesting thing about the NCAA article is that it does have a link to the NCAA death penalty, and there is a good section there on the Southern Methodist University case, as well as the original Kentucky Basketball death penalty from the 1950's. This is definitely an easily transitioned solution for a merge of this article that fits the way the articles are currently layed out on Wikipedia (probably the best that you are going to get). With this as a proposed solution, I like this potential solution so much that I would change to a Keep/Merge request if we go that route. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESOLUTION TO THIS AfD. Thör ^hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clemson Tigers football. - Currently, the Clemson Tigers football article isn't much more than a shell, and merging this article with that one essentially turns it into this article under a different name. Not a good solution. Thör ^hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant season article. - Good bit of discussion above about this. I agree with those above who say it doesn't make sense because some of the probations apply to violations carrying over several seasons. Also not a good solution. Thör ^hammer 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last note on the article name: "Scandal" is a bad word for most any of the of NCAA infraction cases because the majority of them seem to happen in a vacuum, without covert and organized institutional involvement (and it suggests a POV flavor). Hope that makes it about clear as mud. Thör ^hammer 02:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that scandal is the wrong word for this, since there is little evidence of any kind of public outcry; "violations" is an alternative that might be better. The name is only an issue if it is kept, and I don't favor keeping the article.
I disagree with the arguments above that reject any attachment of this information to an article specific to the Clemson team, and that favor moving this information to new fork articles that no one will see. If Clemson Tigers football is not the right article, is there another article specific to this team that would be more appropriate? I agree that Clemson Tigers football is currently tabular data without an encyclopedic narrative, but this would suggest the appropriate course would be to add more information, not keep information out. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the sources cited in the article are press clippings, if the author could cite from a published book (which would provide perspective on the seriousness of the allegations) then I would say keep/merge. Gamecock (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, this article is sourced to Associated Press stories published in The New York Times, plus the NCAA's own press release on the matter. Not exactly a scrapbook from the Sunday Shopper. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - We are being way too easy on this article and its "creator" (read "copier" or "sockpuppeteer"). Per the nom, this definitely is an attack page, no matter how you slice it and no matter how emphatically the sockpuppeteer (ViperNerd) who created it argues his point to stop debate as quickly as possible (so he can get back to his business of disrupting Wikipedia). This editor and his socks should be immediately put on the shortest possible leash and banned at the FIRST sign that they are back to their crap (I'll submit the sockpuppet report ASAP). He is being snide with other contributors (read "Clemson fan") in the discussion above already. Is there truly anybody who thinks this editor is going to change his ways? This guy just doesn't get it. In the last three days, he has engaged in an edit war, violated 3RR (should have been blocked AGAIN for that), had the page protected, used a sockpuppet IP account to be uncivil (see the last edit history quote above), and who knows what else (does he think we're all blind?). Contrary to the nom, this should have been submitted as a Speedy Delete and deleted quickly per the WP policy. The quality of the original article was poor, read like a pasted NCAA report in its entirety, had ZERO secondary or tertiary sources (hastily thrown together). It was awful. It has been doctored up (a waste of time since it should already have been deleted) but still needs significant work. Get rid of this article and its troubled creator. CobraGeek (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument for deletion because of problems with "the original article" that have since been fixed does not make sense, and new articles by new editors almost always need significant work, cf. WP:PROBLEM. I should also remind editors that AFD is not the place for attacks on the article's creator, who is new and editing better now than 2 weeks ago. Even if it were the place for such attacks (and it's not), it's been done already at quite some length. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edgarde, I didn't make the argument for speedy deletion based on quality problems with the original article, those were just some after thoughts. It wouldn't have mattered how good or bad the article is per WP:Attack page policy, even immaculate articles that are attack pages should be deleted because their only intent is to disparage their subject. As far as the puppeteer "editing better", this is just like a convict working out in prison - he is only improving his "craft". Take a look at what he just did with NCAA#Rules violations after Thör mentioned it in his Merge recommendation. He "ethnically cleansed" the entire section because it listed a reference to the University of South Carolina being on probation. What do you think he is going to do when we are not watching? Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out with regards to this miscreant. And please don't suggest that we are biting the newcomer, this guy ain't no newbie. I respect you for the effort you put in here, but you are wasting your time with this editor. CobraGeek (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, everyone "gets it." Attack articles are only acceptable when YOU write them, or agree with their content. Is that about the size of it? Anyone who likes can check the records to see exactly when you decided to write your article about the USC steroid "scandal" but I'll save people the time and effort. It was shortly after an edit was made to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article that dared to mention that Clemson was placed on probation the year following their national championship season. You even made your displeasure known in the talk section of that article. But that wasn't enough for you. Despite having no mention of it on the "to-do list" of your user page to that point, you hastily made an article about the only negative subject in USC football history you could think of to equal Clemson's probation, steroids at USC, posted it to Wiki and then placed referring links to it in every USC article you could find. So your crying foul in this case is utterly absurd and utterly hypocritical given your past actions. Interested parties can also check out the history of your user page which I notice you have sanitized DRAMATICALLY to avoid giving the impression that you are a Clemson fanatic who hates USC and actually a good-faith editor who is on Wiki to simply write about "the truth" of college football. I'll ask a question again that you quickly deleted from your talk page. Why would you write an article about Clemson's 1981 season and then state your intent to write about the 1985-1990 teams? Why skip the 1982-1984 seasons? Is there something notable that took place during that time period that you'd rather not have to address? Also what's the status with that 2007 Wofford article? Seems to be taking a long time to put together for something that took place only last fall. Or is that just more window dressing? As far as my edit of the NCAA article, the source for that entire list in the article was outdated. There were several schools listed that are not on probation currently, but I understand this happens on Wiki, things get written and sourced, and then forgotten about, and can grow "stale." A good example of this is the coaching list in the South Carolina Gamecocks article, I must have had to add at least 4 head coaches that weren't listed in the table. Check the CURRENT NCAA probation list here: https://web1.ncaa.org/pdf/convert?pdfurl=http://goomer.ncaa.org:2020/wdbctx/LSDBi/lsdbi.lsdbi_mi_rpts.currentprobationrpt you will note that it is dated Jan. 23, 2008, I don't think it gets much more current than that. Finally, at least my article's primary source isn't a first-person, heresay account dictated by a disgruntled athlete (of questionable mental capacity due to drug abuse) who was upset about his University not paying for his self-inflicted medical costs when he chose to abuse steroids. Just because you believe it to be the Gospel of Tommy Chaikin, doesn't make it so. ViperNerd (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This AFD is very hard to read because of off-topic discussion. Concerns about editor conduct should be taken to dispute resolution. Urgent concerns go to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, who in this case would probably recommend dispute dispute resolution. Comments about medical emergencies involving my brain should go to my talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Arbitrary Break

Comment - Once again, I'd like to see an admin wrap this case up. The only noms for delete are by the nominator and two avowed fans of the university that is the subject of the article; hardly unbiased observers in this case. In fact, one doesn't seem to understand that the AfD is about the ARTICLE, not its creator. Additionally, I'd guess that those two editors wouldn't even be satisfied with a merge of this article into an existing Clemson football article because they would claim POV or something. If someone wants to tackle the merge (which I feel would be a difficult prospect) that would be acceptable, but I think it more prudent to let this article stand and continue to be improved. Any "discussion" in this case has clearly ground to a halt and has degenerated into personal attacks, I move for a Speedy Keep so that we might all get on with the business of improving Wiki. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly, this has degraded into meaningless infighting and I don't know that we are going to get any further worthwhile debate. I propose closing this debate now, and my recommendation is as I discussed above to Merge into a general article about NCAA probations/rules violations. This is a compromise from the Speedy Delete I proposed in the nom, but again I think it is a good solution on this one. Any objections to closing debate and calling in the closing admin for his decision? VN, I already know that you want to close. Thör ^hammer 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no such article, and most of the merge votes above favor merging to Clemson Tigers football. As I stated previously, I disagree with creating a fork article instead of attaching this information to an article about the Clemson team. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - in a nutshell in terms of keep, merge delete - I agree with edg's well worded point to merge (which of course is another form of Keep!)--VS ^talk 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment - Thor, I am sorry but IMO this AfD was bound to degrade into meaningless infighting from the get go because it started as a very wordy lament against another editor rather than remaining focused on what was wrong with the article as it stood at the time of the nomination!! It has now reached the ranks of being in the group of most tiring to read AfD's at Wikipedia. As I stated earlier there are several places for you to bring various concerns about another editor (and I make no opinion as to whether you are right or wrong), however putting up such a version as this; then canvassing an invitation to the debate to 18 other editors (including a later call to CobraGeek who also makes unhelpful edits against your disfavoured editor); and then continuing such wordy integration into the debate including more tables and suggestions and returns and other tediousness - has not been a proper use of the process nor the place for such edits. Please now leave this damn debate alone (if you or VN must comment further go to the talk page that is attached) and let an admin (I would have done it if I hadn't already commented) trawl through this mess and attempt closure.--VS ^talk 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rack Attack

This article has been tagged for speedy delete and prodded for being SPAM. Original author has not complied completely with <hang-on> request but makes appropriate comment seeking assistance. That said it should got to AfD for consideration as to whether it is blatant advertising or not. --VS ^talk 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - editor had a relationship with a very similar article titled Rack N Road which has been speedily deleted 3 times over the past 12 months.--VS ^talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does have the article in the Denver Post. But what's a gutter-less raingutter? Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORP. To quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." One Denver Post article does not meet these requirements. --mariusstrom 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MariusStrom -Verdatum (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially an advertisement. TJRC (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color rendering capacity

The concept "color render capacity" seems to be idiosyncratic to its originator; there are no book or scholar hits to suggest it has achieved any kind of notability. —Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like a bit of OR or something like that. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Plainly not “original research”, as there are some published references. But doesn't seem to be much of a blip on the radar. —SlamDiego_←T 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a standard concept (the gamut, or some measure of the size of the gamut) but described incoherently in nonstandard terminology. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The page needs a lot of work but there was a clear consensus for keeping and there are no policy considerations that would over-rule that consensus. As as been pointed out, AfD is not a cleanup squad. TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset button technique

Original research not supported by reliable sources. A Google search only turned up forums and mirrors to this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but drastically improve. Much of this article IS, as the nomination says, original research. However, the concept is notable. I did a quick Google search for "reset button" storytelling and this was the first reliable source I found that used the phrase in a discussion of the concept. There are likely more. It's not perfect, but it's better than having no article. Croctotheface (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as above, impove. The "Voyager Reset Button" is infamious in Star Trek:Voyager and Memory Alpha has some info about it to:

This episode — along with TNG: "Cause and Effect", "Yesterday's Enterprise"; DS9: "The Visitor", "Visionary", "Children of Time"; VOY: "Year of Hell", "Year of Hell, Part II"; and ENT: "E²", as well as the entirety of the Temporal Cold War arc — form a genre of episode that some fans called the "Bad Dream" or "Reset Button". In each of these episodes, a substantially altered future, or past, is presented to the audience. The drama of the episode is then derived from the characters taking some action which restores the time line entirely, such that the events originally depicted in the episode never occurred.

From here - Fosnez (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was a brief but interesting discussion on this, recently, in the article discussion page. I agree with one of those editor and with Croctotheface above: '"reset button technique"' yield no interesting Ghits, but other searches as '"reset button" tv show' or '"reset button" [your favourite tv show]' do. Just as a random sample, the former gives web pages about the recent "reset" in Spiderman continuity, about some reset in Galactica, a page in the tvtropes.org wiki and so on (I am not saying these are valid sources: I am just saying this is, even at first glance, a phrase actually used). So, at most, one could advocate a name change to, say, Reset button (narratology) (and more sources and a general trimming of examples). Goochelaar (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I haven't seen this topic discussed in the news, but it is a common thing to do in stories, especially in the science fiction realm. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improved. Sorry, I can't in good conscience argue to keep what is clearly OR. It's non-negotiable. - Chardish (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources available under various names. DGG (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep please see previous AfD. For example it's use here: http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=8250 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. We need an article on this. AfD is not cleanup. Greswik (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Soul

Contested speedy. Non-notable DJ and writer/blogger. No independent sources, no verification, mot Google hits direct to his own site or MySpace. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:N. hateless 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Hsu

Highly unencyclopedic entry, non-notable subject. "Nicolas Hsu" + "curling" in Google returns only 44 results. Gromlakh (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Who knew Chinese Taipei (a/k/a Taiwan) had a curling team? How do you say "double takeout" in Chinese, anyway? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#A7. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure: it does assert he's the "next big thing" - perhaps delete per WP:CRYSTAL would be more appropriate? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chinese-language google results are equally unhelpful. Got his Chinese name from [70]; that plus "curling" in Chinese gives precisely 3 GHits [71]. cab (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable sportsperson. Possibly a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland Paramedic Services

Very limited external, reliable sources on the topic, even in the local press. Even if sources are found, I'm not sure if it's sufficient to be encyclopaedic. The author's comments here raise issues of conflict of interest. Travellingcari (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Altough it does need Citations, it seems as though this Article shouldn't be to difficult to find them for, even if they are in local libraries/hard copies only... etc. At this point I dont feel a COI problem exists, as looks like the Article Creator has done a good job of keeping the Article Neutral in tone. Article has been added to 2 WikiProjects to get relevent Editors attentions. Article Cleanup is suggested. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local ambulance corps, rescue services, fire departments, etc etc are not notable unless they have been engaged in particularly notable events. There are sue to be locval sources--but they are sure to be trivial. The contents of the article indicate the triviality: a list of which unit responds to which town, and the (perfectly standard) equipment on the vehicles. Why is this sort of thing included? because that's all that is available. They have a web site for this sort of material. No onewould look for it in an encyclopedia. 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Delete, per DGG above. Any sources you can find are likely to be trivial, unless this particuar local service has been involved in notable events, which does not seem to be the case here. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Possibly worth a mention in the article on Rockland County but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous topics on cities and population

Extremely vague scope, linkfarm, not sure what the purpose is. A category would surely work better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with that. ― LADY GALAXY 05:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree as well... Can't add much more than that. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too vague by far. Any article whose title starts with "Miscellaneous topics..." is almost guaranteed for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Miscellaneous topics" is a description of Wikipedia itself, not any individual Article within it. (vagueness, simply put) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. vague, possible WP:SPAM vio. Doc Strange (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not necessary when we have categories, and totally vague and possibly subjective.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, appears to be a part of a topical index (List_of_environment_topics:M). There are always going to be these sorts of "miscellaneous" topics that don't fit anywhere else. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decuire

a) non-notable term; b) dictionary entry better suited to Wiktionary; c) may not be real, as Google search for "decuire" and "syrup" returns no relevant results Gromlakh (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged it to be transwikied. Once that is done, Delete as a dict-def. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been transwikied - perhaps the next admin by could speedy close this? Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A5 - has been transwikied. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Republican

Unnotable protologism per WP:NEO, with original research issues. As the article notes, "Thomas DiLorenzo at LewRockwell.com coined the term for Professor Murray Sabrin, whos (sic) is running for for US Senate from New Jersey, on January 15th 2008." I don't think even truthiness became notable in 5 days. The article also appears to be a directory for US Congress candidates that have the same political platform, but Wikipedia is not a directory. hateless 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism and original research. Basically every notable politician gets factions named after them like this anyways. Alternately, could redirect to Political views of Ron Paul. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, yet another attempt by Paul's rabid followers to promote him in any way possible. Next: Ron Paul condoms. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, especially with newcomers. --Explodicle (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Realkyhick Doc Strange (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unverifiable, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Ron Paulcruft. *** Crotalus *** 14:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Explodicle (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per OR. miranda 06:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. EJF (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this in a more generalized sense, a libertarian? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet more Ronpaulinalia. WP:NEO and all that. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Carey

Delete-As far as I can see, there is no notability. One of her supposed films was not credited, the other is at best a glorified, 4th string extra. Possibility of persona lrelationship with author? Anyway, no notability for this 2 time extra, who may or may not have been a 5 timer, for non-notable indie films. I tagged this months ago, and there has been no notable improvement. JJJ999 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well if she's good enough for Yahoo!, she must be good enough for Wikipedia. ― LADY GALAXY 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author. First, JJJ999's accusation that I have any relationship with this person is not only absolutely ridiculous, it's totally baseless, unnecessary, and smacks of bad faith. All that being said, this was one of the first articles I wrote, before I really understood WP:N. The actress doesn't really meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Bad faith nom though this may be, I've been on record since September that she is of borderline notability at best. faithless (^speak) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad faith aside, she's not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I didn't say you did have personal contact with her, I just speculated that was a possiblility. The reason I speculated this is because, as you admit, the article is clearly not notable, and borderline at best.JJJ999 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So you're saying that it's standard practice for you to extend bad faith, even when you have absolutely no reason for doing so? I see. Well, once again, let me reiterate: this was one of the very first articles I wrote, before I understood Wikipedia's notability guidelines. From this you get the impression of a conflict of interest? And I hardly said that she is "clearly not notable," but rather of borderline notability; not at all the same thing. faithless (^speak) 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a sharp rebuke to the nominator for the way they have nominated this, which certainly could be interpreted as not WP:AGF. However, the nominator is right in regards to the article, since this person clearly is not notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Remarks section was removed, so that took cares of the WP:NOR issues, both sides didn't have strong policy based reasoning, thus no consensus.Secret ^account 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests

SNL season pages already exist to database episodes in an orderly fashion for the reader. This enormous 172KB list of episodes is redundant of the season pages. While I have been in favor of LOEs and season pages coexisting, for SNL which has 33+ seasons, an LOE is just unreasonable. Also, the page is muddled with original research in the "Remarks" sections. How can an encyclopedia objectively 'remark' on episodes? If "remarks" in this case means "details," I would save them for the season pages anyway. In sum, the page is redundant, hard to comprehend, and contains OR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and definitely needs more references. The page is also far too long. ― LADY GALAXY 04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be sourced, since each episode was covered by US newspapers. With substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, each episode is notable. Edison (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable, but it's already being covered at the 33+ season pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Agreed, but the way it's organized makes it useful. Having notable facts organized in a reasonable (and useful) way is encyclopedic IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:USEFUL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, please see that essay: "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Torc2 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete information was already split into the pages for the respective seasons Doc Strange (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered on seasonal articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd recommend that someone (maybe me if I get time) should doublecheck that all of the information here is indeed covered at the season article, as it's possible that a properly sourced and verifiable nugget of information was added here and not there. Beyond that, though - The list is redundant. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really useful list to complied all the information in one place instead of having to search episode page by episode page to find the information you're looking for. Users can just click here and scan, control+f, or Google-highlight to find the information that they're looking for. I think a lot of the information contained in the list is redundant and problematic for the reasons listed above, but let me try something: simplifying the list rather than doing away with it all together. I think getting rid of the last column would simplify the list and make it weildy. --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't there some policy that says useful isn't an acceptable keep reason? I thought there was, but I don't have the exact link. Anyway, if the article fails policies... it being "useful" doesn't matter here. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's some weak essay that claims "it's useful" with no other explanation should be avoided. Fortunately In Defense of the Artist didn't just say "it's useful", but provided a good reason why it's useful. Torc2 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete With 33 and counting seasons the article was getting long but it also had a lot of info that the individual season pages didn't have. I say move the appropriate information to the season pages and delete the article. Drn211 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "History of" articles do not include this information in a way that can be easily parsed. (It looks like the "History of SNL" articles just point to this article for that information.) Realistically, this whole table could be merged to those articles, which would make them too big (and not due to "excessive" information, but information we need to have), which would cause them to be separated out again. If the size of this article is a problem, it should simply be split up to Seasons 1-10, 11-20, etc. Torc2 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- edit - It's been pointed out to me that the information in the individual seasons is in fact exactly the same. I still think this is the article to keep, and the season articles should include a pointer to this article instead of smaller lists. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia, Hobit, and Torc2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable information concerning a notable show. The article satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the extensive detail appropriately in WP for the famous series, a combination summary seems appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as any other List of X television show episodes. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concise, notable, verifiable and valuable information gathered in one well-organized, easy to use location. Very worthy list. J. Van Meter (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Non-admin closure LaMenta3 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between yellow-green and green-yellow

Maybe it's just me, but I can't believe that there's any way this topic is notable enough to require its own page, or that these differences couldn't simply be clearly stated on the pages for "yellow-green" and "green-yellow". Gromlakh (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, i don't think it's notable enough at all Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet notability, it's too short, it's unreferenced, and it's original research. ― LADY GALAXY 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at this editor's other contributions such as Blood (color) (contrasting that with the encyclopaedic treatment of that subject that we have at Blood#Color). Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put that article up for deletion too? ― LADY GALAXY 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – the vandal removed the AfD tag; instead of putting it back, I tagged it for speedy deletion (nonsense); I tagged blood (color) similarly. And gave him a final vandal warning for some other edits. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and WP:BOLLOCKS. hateless 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of major cities with notable rivers

Too broad a list, what makes a river "notable" in this criteria. Almost all major cities has a river on them, fails WP:NOT#INFO Delete Secret ^account 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with that. When — or rather, if — the article is finally completed, it's going to be miles long. ― LADY GALAXY 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree is very broad and as you said what makes the city major or river notable? Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lady galaxy, and hatmat. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as kind of pointless. For one, all rivers (for the purposes of WP) are notable, so putting "notable" in the title is redundant. For another, I seem to recall a discussion about how putting "notable" in article titles is not really in line with our style rules, again being redundant, as if there's an article about it, it's assumed to be notable. Likewise, calling it notable when it's not doesn't make it so. This also seems to be an example of over-listification. I don't see how this could be at all useful. A category of cities on rivers might be, or even a list if it also provided additional information like what river, the population of the city, and perhaps other statistics that are potentially related to the city's location on the river. But again, such a category or list would be miles long, significantly impacting its usefulness. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definition of "major city" and "notable river" far too subjective. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Mh29255 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and pointless. Remember where the first civilizations were? The Tigris and Euphrates River Valleys, the Nile River Valley, the Indus River Valley, etc.? Since the dawn of civilization, major cities have been built near rivers, as they provide a steady source of freshwater (as opposed to oceans, which provide saltwater), which humans and livestock drink and which is needed for irrigation of crops. Hence, as the nomination says, most major cities have rivers. (Forgive me if I am stating the obvious here.) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, criteria for inclusion are way too fuzzy. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis informatics

This appears to be original research in an undeveloped field. Please feel free to prove me wrong by finding additional sources for context and verification. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you explain, first, what was wrong with the two sources already cited in the article when you nominated it for deletion? You should also explain what steps you took in order to find other sources, a step that is required in order to make a nomination that is actually properly based upon our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, because from your nomination it appears that you didn't look for sources yourself at all in the 1 minute 44 seconds between this article being created and your nominating it for deletion. As explained in deletion policy, and in several other places including the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, you should look for sources yourself before nominating an article for deletion on these grounds. So: What looking for sources did you do in those 1 minute and 44 seconds? Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't do a Google search. I did notice that the article writer's username was identical to the author of the two articles cited, so I was not sure if the term was in wider usage. Right now I would also support a merge with "Disaster informatics." Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, neologism coined BY THE ARTICLE'S ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Self-promotional. Add a warning to the author against self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … coined in 2005, and adopted by others in the years since, including Leysia Palen at the University of Colorado and the Western Disaster Center (who both make it clear that this is in fact just an alternative name for Disaster informatics (AfD discussion)). Am I really the only editor here who has put this string into Google Web and had a look at the results? Uncle G (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable WP:NEO. Mh29255 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Thanks to Uncle G. I think Disaster informatics is the more comprehensive, widely accepted term. Pastordavid (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, a neologism for the term "Disaster informatics]]", as outlined above. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect - for now, I think the article would be better suited as a redirect to disaster informatics per above. However, any other independant sources referring specifically to this term would warrant a keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakerhead

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kannie | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's already on UrbanDictionary; I think it's too much even for Wiktionary. ― LADY GALAXY 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate and notable hobby/subculture. Books (Sneakers: The Complete Collectors' Guide, Where'd you get those? Sneaker Freaker), documentaries (Just for Kicks), and magazines (Sneaker Freaker) have been devoted to the subject. Maybe renaming it to something like Sneaker collecting or Sneaker culture etc would be appropriate, or a merge to Athletic shoe for later expansion. This is an important subject in hip hop fashion and urban culture. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article may be relatively short and not written well, numerous reputable sources establish the subject to be very notable. Such sources include the Washington Post, New York Times 1, NY Times 2, San Diego Union Tribune to list a few. This article should be kept and improved. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to sneaker collecting. I fixed some of the most egregiously bad writing, but it still needs a lot of help. — brighterorange (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources within article. Yahel Guhan 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whaa? There are several reliable sources listed at the bottom. — brighterorange (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A subculture that has it's own books and even a TV program on ESPN. Personally, I'm a Nike Head (and I wear chains that excite the feds). --EndlessDan 13:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and everything else. A move to sneaker collecting might be a good choice per brighterorange. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child Health International

Contested prod; prod remover added but a single source which appears to be a press release. ~~Cannot locate any significant coverage in reliable sources, delete per WP:ORG.~~ Jfire (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement. ― LADY GALAXY 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two newspaper articles as references and expanded the article. --Eastmain (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds, thanks Eastmain. I'm happy with those sources, nomination withdrawn. Jfire (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus is leaning closely towards delete, but not strong enough for actual deletion, therefore closing as no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Negima

I'm not sure how this got rated a B-class on the quality scale, as it suffers from an immense number of problems. WP:OR, in-universe, no references, no notability outside of the context of the Negima!: Magister Negi Magi article. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (if not then, merge into the main article) 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No original research, all information previously researched and published in the manga itself (appendices in the back)
- And few entries are notable outside their context in the first place. SAMAS (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems pretty cut and dry with WP:OR. Rubydanger (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being a big piece of original research, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that it's also fancruft. ― LADY GALAXY 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, fancruft, overly long, get it out of here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very funny that most of the AfD of these kind of articles will receive delete supporters stating one common thing as their main arguement: fancruft. Wikipedia never stated anything about not inculding fancruft, as long as it is not OR, well sourced and got enough notability. About the note of OR, this page have no problem of OR, it is just lacking secondary sources. All of the quotes are extracted directly from the appendix of the book itself, and only need a common source: book appendices. I have no comment on the notability, and does not care if it got deleted. However, if you are going to ask for a delete on the page, drop the fancruft part of your arguement, it got nothing to do with the deletion process, so either use a valid arguement, or go away. MythSearcher^talk 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time fancruft is far too unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. ― LADY GALAXY 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if long articles about spells and such things that go on in a fictional game world are your cup of tea and what the kids will be reading about twenty years from now in books, go ahead. I don't think everyone will agree with you, though. ― LADY GALAXY 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mythsearcher. Lady Galaxy is right, fancruft is often not notable. But sometimes it is, so just saying "fancruft" is pretty worthless. And oddly the "kids" 20 years later are still dealing with spells and things that go on in fictional game worlds. World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, and Shadow Run are mostly played "by the kids" 20 years later... On this bit of fancruft, ~~I don't know enough to have an opinion~~ (see below). Hobit (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you're completely missing the point here. We say it when we're discussing an article that's not notable. Obviously if the fancruft was of the good kind, why would everyone be tossing in their vote for it as a reason why it should be deleted. About this "fictional world", hm could it have anything to do with the fact that those kids are now tearing up Compton and robbing cars? (Let's not mention welfare!) Even if they're not, they're still at home with Mommy and Daddy. Lady Galaxy 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't think this particular article is very productive and notable, the series seems to be very popular, but it is mainly just duplication of the back of a series of book appendices, and is really not that useful in telling others how the magic in that series is like, since people who read the book or watched the anime will know, and they will have their hands on the book anyway. People who did not read the book will have no idea with only a butch of spells of latin words and have no use in them. I posted my comment just out of my own speculation on wikipedia AfDs about people starting to place things that are not official rules like a simple fancruft accusation as deletion reason, which from my point of view, degraded wikipedia's as a simple vote instead of trying to talk things out. BTW, leaving just fancruft as a deletion reason sounds like cruftcruft. MythSearcher^talk 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a simple way of trying to talk things out. It's basically, "Nice if you're a fan, but to be honest, this piece of work just can't and doesn't fit in with Wikipedia." What I'm seeing is that some people think the term itself just looks and sounds funny and everybody seems to be saying it, so they try to pass it off as, "Well, that's just mainstream fluff." There must be a reason everybody's saying it. If it doesn't fit, it just doesn't fit. Lady Galaxy 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you posted the WP:fancruft page, please be familiar with it. In that page, section 6, it is specifically stated that the word should not be used in AfDs, the main focus should be notability instead, Like I said, I agree with the arguement of the question page may not be notable, but posting a simple fancruft comment is not a valid arguement since there are notable fancruft. the reason you see a lot of people are using it is because most of them are not aware of that point, and is falling into the WP:CRUFTCRUFT category. MythSearcher^talk 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that they're saying it's fancruft because they think it is. Obviously if they thought it was good fancruft that belonged here, they wouldn't have bothered to comment in the first place. Or they'd comment saying that it is good fancruft and should be kept. Lady Galaxy 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the discussion should be on notability instead of just one word: fancruft. First, it sounds very uncivil to just throw out one word. In that sense, it sounds like junk to the keep party and is almost an insult. Second, it just blocks all of the discussion between deleters and keepers since there seems to be no discussion grounds, once the deleters said it is fancruft, usually they don't come back to discuss since they see no point in doing so on such topic. If you really want the article to be deleted, state the actual notability issue, like the policy page you have posted suggested. MythSearcher^talk 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, but that thing needs major cleanup and wikifying. It could also use more explicit sourcing -- that is, referencing which appendix each bit is from. Assuming those references verify (and for the moment I assume in good faith that they will), that dispenses the WP:OR problem. In any case, those are per editorial policy clean-up issues, not causes for deletion. "In-universe" also is not a cause to delete, but per WP:WAF a reason to clean it up. Which leaves the issue of notability -- whether these are notable outside the context of the series. After a bit of poking about with Google, I confess I'm not finding WP:RS in English to that suggest that it is, yet, but I do see enough interest in the magic system of the series (not at Harry Potter levels of interest, but interest nontheless) that it's possible I'm not finding them. Also, I don't read Japanese, and cannot tell if there's anything behind that language barrier. What I would like to do is keep for the moment, notify the relevant Wikiproject (currently on a big cleanup push) that this is in need of expert attention and sourcing, and if nothing comes of it, revisit for deletion in, say, two months. My only hesitation here is that it's been marked for cleanup (without notifying the Wikiproject) for two month, which means a good faith notice has already been given, making this a weak keep for this program. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to remind editors that an unsourced statement in an article does not equate to original research. It is unverified and so potentially original research, but that is not the same thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep given Quasirrandom's comments. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in case the first one doesn't count): I dispute the Original Research charge. Most of the information given for the spells is outlined, researched (Word origins similarities in casting words, and the like), and described in appendices in the back of the manga volumes themselves. SAMAS (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all of this is written in the manga appendices, I don't know, but at the very least I think all of the English translations of the Japanese spells would be OR. The biggest problem is the in-universe style; after a serious cleanup, what content would be left that isn't already in the Negima!: Magister Negi Magi article? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would only be OR if a fan had created the English translations. In this case, the info, like the whole of the manga is being translated by the American publisher in their publications. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Translations are not, by definition, OR. Read the Not OR page. The issue needs to be decided on the basis of notability, not sourcing for the spell translations. That can be argued about by people with the necessary Japanese ability. Doceirias (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which page says translations are not OR? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTOR, like I said. Doceirias (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Quasirandom. Has anyone informed the appropriate project about the need for improvement? Edward321 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no evidence of notability at all! NBeale (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Anime wiki. For Wikipedia, it is simply too much detail. It also doesn't have a single reliable third-party source, as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also there is a great deal of original research in the article. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, going over the article, I'd like you to point an example out. SAMAS (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...indicating the two spells are equal in level and require the invocation of spiritual being that the caster made contract with." "One of the most basic attack spells, but also very versatile." "Some mages, particularly combat mages, will also use the Sagitta Magica to enhance the power of their close combat attacks." "These sets of spells always seem" And finally, the entire "Magic Vampirism" and "Magic Canceller" sections. --Farix (Talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 13, page 70 (Chapter 113 appendix) says, not exactly that, but close enough to keep it from being plagiarism.

Powering up physical attacks is explicitly stated in volume 11 as a common use.

But I'll have to check the Vampirism and Canceller entries. SAMAS (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for in-universe information like this, primary sources such as series appendices are valid sources for verifying the information. (Third-party info is, of course, required to confirm notability, but that is a different matter.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability does require at least one reliable, third-party source. To quote from the policy, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Farix (Talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very crufty - although would not object to it being given some time so that it can be transwikied to a more appropriate wiki. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply, again, please go read the 6th section of WP:FANCRUFT and look how your very crufty arguement fit into the WP:CRUFTCRUFT page. If it is not notable, say so and say why it is not. Certain fancrufts has their notability, it is not a good thing to use it as an arguement when supporting a delete status. I agree that this particular article might not be notable due to its culture impact is not very great and would probably be very hard to find a third party source, however, THIS IS EXACTLY what this AfD discussion should focus on, NOT the article is fancruft or not. MythSearcher^talk 07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O-Dog

Delete Not notable. Any editor with half some knowlegde of the wikipedia policies and partial knowledge of the movie can see why this article needs to be deleted. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not have any references either. ― LADY GALAXY 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shoulda actually been speedy delete, as it does not even assert notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable bio, notability not asserted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails notability per WP:BIO. Mh29255 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the subject of this article fails WP:PORNBIO. No major awards are noted on the article page, nor unique contributions to the genre, and Youtube aside, has no numerous mentions in mainstream media.

If you disagree with this decision, please seek Deletion Review. Due to suspicions of undue influence, the article will be salted temporarily: A DRV admin is free to unprotect if consensus merits. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Rocco Magnotta

NOTE to closing administrator - many comments were removed due to a large number of single-purpose accounts; a concern was expressed that some of these may have had good policy-based arguments, see the talk page. —Random832 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(semi-protected discussion)

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

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

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

This nomination request has been semi-protected due to the meatpuppet flood. If you can not edit this page, please leave your comment on the talk page and the closing administrator will review it. Nakon 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable pornographic actor/model trying to use Wikipedia to gather more attention. Article has previously been deleted. MasterA113 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims Magnotta's been in the industry since 2003. However, he doesn't seem to be that famous. Google only brought me 380 hits, and nothing worth mentioning. ― LADY GALAXY 03:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-"comment" Try googling "Luka Magnotta" he doesnt use his middle name. Links to all articles are on his page, please try to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitley keep, useful article to many people... luka is searched for alot, just look at the history. Alot of people have found this article useful for months and some unfortuate peopl are ruining it by wanting it deleted. user:buttercupbaby77

Weak Delete After taking a look, given the guy does have an IMDB article I can't see why he isn't notable enough to keep. However! Allowing it would open the doors to flood Wikipedia with pornstar personal pages, and there are -- well, alot of them. Notable-ish. Also, Lady Galaxy, I don't think there is such a rule, tbh. Nor could I really say one way or the other if there should be one. Rubydanger (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Dude, everyone knows it's you making your own case for keeping the article, Luka. Non-notable even if he *is* on IMDB. Heck, I'm on IMDB - do I get my own Wiki because of it?Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It smells like raw meat DRIPPING with blood, Oh God. JuJube (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Lady Galaxy 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AnonEMouse's custom pr0no search produces two hits, neither related to this guy. Not notable. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio with hints of advertising. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these websites, of Luka's aka Jimmy[72] [73][http://executivemaleescorts.com/index.php?

KEEP Why are all the POSATIVE somments deleted? Not fair, there ARE numerous reliable sources for Luka Magnotta in google if you google " Luka Magnotta" Article is very well written and states reliable sources. Thank you.user:ambrrose331

Speedy delete perhaps with a bit of WP:SALT. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoned arguments above. Also, Buttercupbaby77/Ambrrose331, you may want to check which account you are signed into when you sign a comment under a name. --Smashville^BONK! 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a vanity page, it is full of reliable content which alot of people obviously search for. I find it useful, there seems to be alot of 'delete happy' people here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banditolover (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, vanity page, agree on salting this earth. Dureo (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Article meets standards, sites reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfulworldfree (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, nothing at imdb, there are porn actors with hundreds of roles. This guy has five that don't even get documented at imdb? Corvus cornix_talk 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, doing some research on this guy, this seems like another Rikki Lee Travolta self-promoter. The youtube videos are so bogus, they never show his face and the bodies together, they show people with and without tattoos, there's one pic where his face is clearly photoshopped over the body. His links are to PR sites where anybody can post anything, and one where it's actually him posting the claims. Nothing makes this person notable. Corvus cornix_talk 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I created this page, I work in the entertainment industry. Numerous people in my building herd and saw this guy on the news, read his articles in FAB magazine, Toronto SUN and so on. Simply because you believe he is "pathetic" and you dont like him does not make a valid point to just get rid of this page. which ALOT of people use and find useful. THats what Wikipedia is for isnt it? For information, and I feel strongly to keep this page.

- Comment There is also a wide fan following on the internet and he has since become a cult icon on there aswell. So if he is a model, actor, internet personality and there are numerous articles on him...aswell as PLENTY people who visit this wikipedia page daily, some for good reasons to get info and some who use it negatively...please I ask that you leave this page up.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitalarson1 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Excuse me, who said he was pathetic, other than you? The number criterion for having an article here is verifiability, and in order to prove that the person is notable is to provide reliable sources for his notbility. None has been provided. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The interview with the Toronto Sun and the other sources currently in the article do appear to meet WP:BIO (as much as I'd like to argue for deletion simply out of annoyed reaction to the meatpuppets above). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) switching to abstain right now looks like only one reliable source and an arguably reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which source other than the Toronto Sun article is a reliable source? Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Obviously Fab magazine is reliable, Toronto Sun, Internet Movie Database, Official Homepage, Associated Content Page, Official Youtube Channel with Millions of Views.

I am making the point that these articles ARE reliable, he is notable, the articles and links to his films have been provide. So absolutely I am telling everyon I have just edited it to tone it down, clean it up and I did. If anyone has any suggestions please le t me know, we can work together to end our disputes and after we do I would ask you for your guys support to help me edit a little if you feel it nessisary. Lets work together and be professional. I strongly want to keep this article after it has been edited a little, lets compromise. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think Fab magazine might be ok, although looking at it in more detail, I'm not as convinced. Switching to abstain. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Ok, so He has Toronto Sun articles, associtaed content article, articles in fab magazine, links to his videos and thousands of hits in google..and millions of hits in youtube? Seriously, this is getting pathetic and childish. Keep the bloddy article and stop arguing and vandalising it. What the hell is the big deal. Get a life people. So annoying. He HAS reliable sources and is notable. Thats what it says in Wikipedia standards and guidlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have already requested keep above. Nakon 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Luka is notable to alot of people, as it states in his IMDB and in reliable news articles. There are people who have ONE reliable news article on here. Luka has numerous different sources of notability. Including his adult films and fab magazine. Aswell as Youtube(i know youtube is not that important, but there is substancal amounts of content and interviews on there of his televsion appearances) Plus the wikipedia entry is very useful to many who OBVIOUSLY search for him, just look at the history guys. So my point= reliable articles and he is notable...two main points. Please keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His imdb entry is empty. It doesn't list that he has done anything. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep.I tihnk some people on here sould go edit an article with one line...go edit an article with someone who has No hits on google, INSTEAD they are discussing Luka Magnotta and saying he has no reliable sources, ? That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. There are at least four reliabe articles written about him, along with dozens of other articles. Plus his IMDB and anyone with millions of hits on youtube is supposed to be unknown? HMMM since when? He is obviously notable and known, some people on here just dont do their research and are not professional OR openminded. Read FAB magazine and the Toronto Star and after that go to his official website and youtibe and imdb and then if your not offended look at all his adult films which are sited. Please lets start being adults here and not competative children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitalarson1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you people talking about, SERIOUSLY, Luka's IMDB resume lists his films. WHY are you stating that his resume is blank? Start being professional and HONEST. Noone likes liars or busybodys. Look at Luka's resume. IT IS FULL of his FILMS and modelling. His Wiki entry is full of his films , modelling and nes articles ? What is your peoples problems? GET A LIFE. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we both looking at the same page? http://imdb.com/name/nm2728281/ is blank. His resume, which is provided by him personally, is not a reliable source. Neither is imdb, really, but it generally does show things that a person is notable for. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are speaking of this:[74] which stats on the bottom of the page "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." Definitely NOT a reliable source. Wildthing61476 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Mame/Sir the article is [75] Resume cleasly states his employment in adult films, modelling and Internt.

Can we please just agree that there are reliable sources such as Toronto Sun, Fab magazine, and IMDB. However there ARE numberous other articles from news sited talking about his cosmrtic surgery and involvment in Scientology. Im getting really tired of arguing and just want this to be over. I really am sincerely in belief that the article should stay up. Also Internet celebritys who have hundreds of thousands fans and Millions of subscribers obviously research him on a daily basis, just chsck the history. One of the comments on his official youtube page reads " Hey, Luka..I think your a fairy and I nominated your Wikipedia page cause your a fairy and I hat fairys" That is rediculous. Also please go to this link [76] It is a television interview stating he is a male escort? Why is that not included? Bottom line. He is obviously notable, there are alot of articles, I do admit though some are not reliable..however alot are you have to admit. FAB magazine and Toronto sun's media. Alot of people find this article useful, I personally am willing to change and edit it myself, does anyone have any ideas or can help me so that we can keep it. I am trying to be fair and negotiate. I do think the page should be saved BUT it would need to be protected from vandalisim. Please let me know if you are willing to help me. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't agree that imdb is a reliable source. It clearly states it not. Nor are blogs or fan sites. Please read WP:NOTE on what establishes notability and ensure that you can demonstrate it via that. Youtube histories, myspace friend counts, etc mean nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And fab mag is also not a reliable source. These kinds of mags make up information about their models. He's even listed there under two different names. Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I made some changes as requested I edited "persoanl life" Made it more nutral and I edited Video Blogs. I took out opinions and just lef facts. I believe the article has now been improved, please let me know if you see anything else that might need my fixing. Thanks guys. I really want to edit it to the best I can to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"COMMENT" I believe Fab magazine to be a reliable source, what proof do you have that the magazine is not a reliable source? Yes one of his articles states he is Luka and the other he goes by his porn name "Jimmy" SAME as in his films. Almost every porn actor does. YOu have no proof FAB magazine is unreliable. Canada and its gay community rely in it and yes it is reliable. Lets stick to the facts and NOT your opinion please. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What proof do you have that FAB Magazine IS reliable? We have stuck to the facts in this case, and the fact remains, there aren't enough reliable sources (and an interview in the Toronto Sun is NOT enough!) to show why he is notable. You keep referring to his "resume" on IMDB, which again we have shown is completely not reliable as IMDB themselves have stated, and again I quote, "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." So according to IMDB, this resume, is not accurate, complete or verified. All of this points back to that there are not enough sources to verify why he is notable. A few more things, one please remember to be and stay civil in your comments. Secondly, make sure you sign all of your posts with ~~~~ as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already expressed an opinion above, based on the usual way of verifying notability of porn stars. That, of course, is not infallible because a Google search, however well-targeted, does not cover media without an online presence. It is the same with citing books or newspapers in a library, some of which are long out of print, are not online, but nevertheless are valid sources both for establishing notability and providing detail. The "keep" faction here, although well-intentioned, seem to be having some trouble realising what is necessary to establish notability, which is the crux of this debate. Enthusiasm is one thing, objective support for that enthusiasm is another. It may well be that the subject of this article is entirely worthy of support, but with the best will in the world to him, this is an encyclopedia with standards, and it seems to me that it is up to those arguing to keep this article to provide reason to do so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to say that I believe Luka Magnotta is notable because he has starred and acted in several adult films WHICH ARE RELIABLY SITED, Luka was also a model in FAB magazine and FAB boy TWICE, Magazine links in article along with film links. Also Luka is widly known on Youtube with over 2million viewers. Luka has been featured in news paper articles, internet articles which are sited...and please view this television interivew of Luka, [77] for which he is interviewd about his career. HONESTLY NAKED NEWS MUST BE RELIABLE? How can people keep saying these arent reliable? He was inrerviewed countless times? http://youtube.com/watch?v=sFF0aKmDp18. That is my argument that he is a notable ADULT performer in Films and Magazines.

Strongly Keep after viewing all the reliable adult film sites which feature Luka, I compared them to other adult male pornstars and Luka has more listed films then most other gay pornstars.

Plus I viewed Luka's television interview[78] on Naked News, then I googled Naked news and they are reliable, then I viewed his interviews with associated Content and Toronto Sun. Luka is widly known and obviously notable. I strongly agree to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginefreedom (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Imaginefreedom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for keeping something. WP:NOTE has a specific entry for porn stars and there is no evidence he meets that criteria. If there are other actors who have even less notability than him here, they need to be put up for deletion as well. The associated content website is self-published content. Even if it were considered reliable, its not independent of the subject as he's allegedly written it himself. This can't establish notability. Hence why its written in the first person.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional footage. Interviewed by Naked News[ http://youtube.com/watch?v=sFF0aKmDp18.

]

Youtube is not a reliable source, and in fact, linking to it is deprecated as its images tend to be copyright violations. Corvus cornix_talk 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely keep, well known googled searched 'Luka Magnotta' pleanty of reliable articles and television interviews, as well as dozens of porn videos and magazines. Article written well and in a fair tone with links to reliable news sources, IMDB, Official website, adult film links and magazine links. Definitly notable.Santamonicablvd3(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) — Santamonicablvd3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source and can't establish notability. If there are plenty of reliable articles provide them.--Crossmr (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known by multiple different sources, viewed his television interviews, watched his adult films and magazines. VERY well known on the internet. Supporting articles check out, IMDM checks out, read news articles. Honestly its getting real sad that some people on here are acting like children "tit for tat" the guys obviously well known..he's oon television interviewed for his career, millions view his porn, he is in magazines. Bottom line is the guy has links to ALL his films, and some of the people on here are being unrealistic. He is notable and the links proove it, They keep saying "provide links" ALL THE LINKS TO HIS VIDEOS ARE PROVIDED. Links to television interviews are also provided, countless articles and websites. He is alot more known then alot of the other male porn stars I researched on here. Keep article and lets all grow up.22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)MartinLKing9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinLKing9 (talk • contribs) — MartinLKing9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, an IMDB listing does not assert notability. No independent sources that do assert notability, either. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Childish nonsense not even worthy of being called an hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic)

Hoax. No such church. Corvus cornix_talk 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax church per nom -- no sources to be seen anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There actually was a Dr. Samuel Huber who questioned Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine, and who wrote about religion, and one can even find google references to "Huberianism" as a summary of that person. However, this "Scriptures of Hubie" and other nonsense shows that this is intended as a joke. Mandsford (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is a hoax, badly written, and unreferenced. ― LADY GALAXY 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Complete bollocks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: clearly a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as I could find no sources on dogpile.com. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GATEWAY - The MU* Community

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

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

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

Page does not adhere to Wikipedia:WEB, as well is a severe Conflict of Interest, has no verifiable citations that are from anyone but related and involved persons in said internet group and is entirelly promotional. Original author refuses to rewrite or allow any edits to stand. In short? There is very little reason for it to remain. Rubydanger (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC) — Rubydanger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. It certainly is notable, as notable as the others in the same category. Ruby has failed to show any evidence of a conflict, and Wikipedia does not have a deadline. GreenJoe (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that GreenJoe is the creator of the article and is the only person who has worked on the article to maintain its statu quo and has constantly reverted edits made by other people who add a more realistic slant. He is clearly acting in no capacity other than to protect his baby. His vote should be highly suspect. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be further noted that GreenJoe has added the speedy deletion template to the article. Changing my vote to reflect this. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conflicts. 1. Wikipedia:NOR - Article is written with a POV conflict, expressing opinions. Original author refuses (see talk page) to rewrite. This also infringes upon Wikipedia:NPOV. 2. Wikipedia:Verifiability - All citations are either non-notable resources or are from websites related to, or written by people related to the article in question. Details provided on the Talk Page. 3. Given all citations are invalid and the author refuses to allow another point of view for the article (as seen by his reverting edits), it makes the article borderline Advertising. 4. Article breaks every single of the 3 requirements for Notability. Rubydanger (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. — 24.117.225.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GreenJoe (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who Cares Who gives a shit about a MUSHing resource? A hobby for a few hundred people counts as notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.220.14 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per RubyDanger. This stinks of the owners work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.68.193 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too POV. Written by someone directly associated with the primaries in the MU* in question. Worded with nothing but laudatory language while all attempts to balance have been reverted. Not notable to anybody outside of a hobby that has at most a few hundred people in it across all games. Obviously written as a promotional scheme for the MU* in question, not as an actual, useful piece of encyclopaedic information. Yadda yadda yadda. The list could grow on and on. MTR (严加华) (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Feels like an advertisement to me. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per Ruby. Non-notable article about a non-notable group. As a member of the MUSH community I can say I've never even heard of these people. Furthermore every citation offered in the article is of dubious verifiability. There is no ability of the article creator to demonstrate any notability for the subject. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by Rubydanger, this article is "...entirelly promotional. Original author refuses to rewrite or allow any edits to stand..." All edits to the article made by others have been reverted by Greenjoe. The original author refuses to allow any changes to make the article more neutral. The original author insists that the article says "is a recognized leader in resource and social MU*s," despite the fact that many users of the Gateway, including myself, disagree severely. In keeping with the policies of Gateway, all sources and comments which critique Gateway at all are blacklisted by Gateway and its management staff. If the original author continues to refuse to allow edits to make the article more neutral to stand, then this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it can't be edited. I'm saying sources need to be cited. GreenJoe (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were cited. My citations were just as verifiable as yours were. As well, your only arguments in keeping this article is that 1. It is just as relevant as any other MU* page, which is incorrect. Otherspace has independant real world citations (newspaper) and even it is contested. Gateway doesn't have anything even comparable. 2. That Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Nowhere in your repeatedly used source of Wikipedia:NOT can I find that stated. Rubydanger (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - His stating of Wikipedia does not have a deadline doesn't even make sense. That's like saying nothing should be deleted because everything might eventually be notable. Delete it now, add it again if it ever becomes worthy of inclusion. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can edits be cited when you, Greenjoe, revert the citations? Rubydanger, as noted, added citations which you promptly reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those citations fail verifiability. I'm talking about 3rd party citations. GreenJoe (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then delete all of your citations. Citation 1: A post by the head admin of Gateway and clearly not a third party. Citation 2: A post by Wes Platt, who you note is involved in the Gateway project and thus clearly not a third party. Citation 3: A post by Ra, the head of Gateway. As noted, clearly not a third party. Citation 4: The website for OGR, the former website for Gateway. Clearly not a third party citation. On that other hand, you deleted a citation from a clear cut third party, namely WORA. While you can agree the validity of WORA, it is at least an actually third party unlike your own citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said Wes Platt was involved with Gateway. As for WORA, it's not third party. It's obviously biased. GreenJoe (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How can a public forum of over 1900 members be more biased than a MU* with a login average of 50? Rubydanger (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I apologize, Rubydanger noted that Wes Platt is involved with Gateway. Assuming that is correct my point stands -- you have four citations written by people directly involved with Gateway and who are clearly not third parties. Whether or not WORA is a an appropriate or non-biased source is one thing, but WORA is very much a third party. The people running WORA and the vast majority of the WORA posters are not staff members of Gateway. Gateway has 8 staff members listed and WORA has, as of this date, has 1962 members. Thus, at the most, Gateway's staff comprise .0041% of the WORA membership. WORA is a third part source. 99.235.108.121 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is called "When Online Roleplayers Attack" for a reason. Plus Wikipedia's existing policy already states that forum's not meet the verifiability requirement. It's original research. GreenJoe (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So is all of your citations. You compared Gateway to other wiki entries in the same catagory. I'm not allowed to make comparisons now? This time between our citations? Regardless of the fact that you cannot establish a standard just because noone bothered to address those articles yet either. Rubydanger (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your citations 'written by OGR/GATEWAY staff, They are far, far worse of a citation source than WORA. 99.235.108.121 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The MUSHing hobby already has a few wikis. Those wikis are a more appropriate place for this article. In fact, GATEWAY already has its own article on at least one of those wikis. GreenJoe is welcome to go to that wiki and update their information on GATEWAY. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's not a lot here that makes this look notable in a real-world sense, and very few independent links to verify its notability even within the MU* context. Neither GreenJoe nor Rubydanger have provided external links that are sufficiently third-party to justify the article's existence (although admittedly the latter is not all that interested in keeping), so it should just go. JuJube (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable group per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rubydanger's excellent synopsis above. In particular, its notability even in the community it claims to represent is not considerable, and its notability in the real world is nil. Lord Bob (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources, even after several requests for such. - Ehheh (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, borderline speedy-deletion bait. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above me. I don't see any claims of strong notability. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Talk! 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources from which notability could be judged. The current reference section seems to consist entirely of forum postings, which are not reliable to determine any facts according to our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted, this is uncited, does not assert notability and appears to be very much like an advertisement. Slavlin (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very promotional in tone, and does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Miner

Non-notable hair stylist. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony is also the author of several books and a reality television director. I believe that these notable contributions, combined with his work on several television shows, make him worthy of the subject of a Wikipedia article. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable sources for either of those claims. imdb doesn't mention him as a director of anything, and there are no links to reliable sources concerning the notability of his books. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I am Anthony Miner – I spent the last the 13 years as a celebrity hair stylist. Clients include George Clooney – Hilary Swank – Wayne Brady – Films include Pirate of the Caribbean. I was nominated for Best Period Hair Styling - Television (For a Single Episode of a Regular Series - Sitcom, Drama or Daytime)Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild Awards. My latest book, “If you like chocolate eat chocolate.” Available February 1, 2008 on Amazon.com and bookstores. My isbn is # 1-4196-8880-4 – I would really like to be a part of the Wikipedia community. Please reconsider my deletion. 76.90.53.122 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. [[WP:N|Notability] should be determined by those who do not have a conflict of interest. I vote to delete a not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A biographical entry about a writer is neither spam nor self-promotion necessarily. If there are no reliable sources for a certain claim yet, then the article should be marked as unsourced, not marked for deletion. If I wrote the article prematurely (i.e. before the books were released and adequate sources were made available), that should not doom the article to deletion. I don't believe a fair vote can be made until after the books are released...which is in a mere matter of days. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are only three links in all of Google that even show that the book exists, and none of them is a neutral source. Only one Google hit for his supposed other book. And the article doesn't even mention anything about directing reality tv. Corvus cornix_talk 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. Mr Miner should be welcomed into the Wikipedia community, but this article should not be welcomed into the Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and stubify. His IMBd page has a ton on it for just his work as a hair stylist, so it seems like at least that work is notable in its own right. Unless sources can be provided for his directing and books, we'll have to remove that content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If we include bios on everyone with 31 or more credits on IMDb, that's gonna be a h_ck of a lot people presently known only to trivia-mongers. —SlamDiego_←T 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's wait until the books come out in the next few days/weeks so we can get the sources, shall we? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, let's not. If these books were notable, there would be some notice of them prior to their publication. And I'm still waiting for evidence of the reality TV shows. Note that Ryangibsonstewart is the original creator of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with your points on notability, but object to the suggestion that the opinion of RyanGibsonStewart should be discounted because of his rôle as creätor of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nowhere did I say that his opinion should be discounted, I am merely pointing out a fact which is important for the closing admin to know. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is it important for the closing admin to know? —SlamDiego_←T 08:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's as important as knowing whether somebody has any other edits to their credit. It's an indication of potential bias. I am not saying that there IS bias, but it's a fact that the admin should know. Corvus cornix_talk 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And how — other than by giving the opinion less weight to off-set the potential bias — could the closing admin possibly adjust for this potential? —SlamDiego_←T 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any reliable sources about this person. According to IMDB, he has been nominated for one award, but has no listings for winning awards. [79] So with only a string of work credits and books that don't appear to be notable, he doesn't clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the absence of sources. If and when there are more reliable sources indicating notability, the article can be restored. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it looks like most everybody is voting to delete the page. When sources become available for Anthony's work, how does one go about nominating an article for restoration? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources provided that sufficiently establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Addhoc (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idan Mintz

Has this up as a CSD under A7, was removed (I think accidentally, per page history) by another user, so I figured I'd take it here. Subject isn't remotely notable; Google search for his name reveals only one result from www.teacherweb.com. Gromlakh (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person (possibly self-created or created by an overzealous family member). Article isn't linked to anything. I can verify the fact that only one site brings up anything about the person this article is about. Doc Strange (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unreferenced, too short, and doesn't meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, notability not asserted, no context. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. Apparently a brilliant kid, but no evidence of notability, and not even reliable sources on apparent brilliance. —SlamDiego_←T 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed that the article's creator, Eggbertman, removed the AfD notice. I have restored it, but someone will probably need to keep an eye on it. —SlamDiego_←T 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BIO. Restored speedy delete tag that was removed by article's creator. Mh29255 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, it was not the page creator who removed the speedy tag. He did later remove the AfD notice, but he didn't pull my speedy tag. That was done by Lbr123, and I'm pretty sure it was an accident. His edit summary said he was correcting a misspelling, but he actually blanked the page. The next edit was the author putting back his original text. I have a feeling the speedy template removal was just an accident. Gromlakh (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Mh29255 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the information, since all places are notable, even if their articles are stubs. If the article is possibly ambiguous or misleading, this is an issue that can be sorted out editorially, and not a matter for AfD. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kresty

There is no town in Pskov Oblast called "Kresty". There are four villages by this name, but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the four is meant. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally speaking villages are notable regardless of size per WP:OUTCOMES#places Since it looks like this article was auto-created by a bot, couldn't we just pick one of the other Krestys, fix the location information, and make the article about that? Or make it a disambiguation page? Xymmax (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I could easily make four separate substubs, the places are so minor that I would not be able to add anything beyond the location, district jurisdiction, and possibly a postal code (here is an example of what these substubs would look like). The reason why I am so hesitant to create substubs of this sort is because Russia has over 190,000 rural localities, most of which are virtually unknown and have hardly any information available about them. Why create 190K ugly one-liners when there is virtually zero chance that they are expanded any time soon?

As for turning this into a dab page, MOSDAB currently prohibits creating dabs with red links which are not used in any article. I see someone had enough sense to contest this clause here, but at present having such a dab would be against the MOSDAB guidelines.

Either way, the article in its present form is unsaveable. Even if we make four separate articles, none of them would utilize any information from this one, as this one is way too unspecific.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider makeing a set index article. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles. Taemyr (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, direct me to a description of guidelines for formatting set index articles? From the link you provided, it is still unclear to me how a "Kresty" dab page would look different from a "Kresty" set index article or even what a difference between a "Kresty" dab page and a "Kresty" set index article would be if we had both (apart from the fact that the MOSDAB guidelines do not apply to the latter). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using either of the alternatives suggested by Xymmax. My preference would be to pick a given town and make the article about that. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be suggesting AfD if I could pick one of the villages and make a decent article about it? The places are so small that the best that could be done is something like this. Now, there are 190,000+ rural localities in Russia; do you really want to start creating similar one-liners on each and every one of them? I can do it any day, but I don't think re-typing OKATO is something that would be of great benefit to this encyclopedia...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the answer to that question is YES, because you clearly could if you put the effort in. Just because you don't want to do that doesn't mean that wouldn't be better off with a stub on one of these villages (or a disambig page). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the suggested split. Each of the villages by that name is appropriate for an article DGG (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the above editors, with the split. All (real) places are notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Folks, would you please explain what exactly are you planning to keep? Replacing this page with a disambiguation will erase any existing information on that page (and, since that information is too ambiguous to be useful, it cannot be re-used), so that solution is pretty much the same as deleting the page altogether. So, your votes basically amount to "create a dab page with a bunch of red links". You might want to clarify your comments if this is not what you meant to say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemonist Doctrine

Appears to be a term created by columnist J.R. Dunn for an article on the website American Thinker. A Google search finds mostly references to the Dunn article. No links from other Wikipedia articles to this one. Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, needs cleanup, and is almost original research. ― LADY GALAXY 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, unreferenced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research that is not verified per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a political neologism that doesn't appear to be in wide use. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Possibility of recreation exists if good sources can be found. CitiCat^♫ 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anitica Butariu

Delete N/N per wp:bio, article about a person who lived a long time, however, this is disputed, not even a record holder... zzz Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this individual is the longest-lived person from her home country, and in the higher echelons of all-time lists. As a result, multiple independent sources will surely exist, I will have a look now. The article is currently not particularly impressive, but that is not on its own grounds for deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, please have a look for them, perhaps you can do a better job of finding them? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands as unverified urban legend lacking any good cites. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to confirm this person's age. Would be notable if claims could be verified though. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete. I found one independent source[80] but we really need more for an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Coleman

Non-notable actress. Article has no references and isn't much more than a vanity/resume type article. Article does not list her as lead in any major TV series or films. WebHamster01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking on IMDB, she's only been featured in one TV show. I don't know what all the external links are for. She's not big enough, yet. I would have to say that this fails notability. ― LADY GALAXY 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete article could be kept but it needs to be properly referenced for me to even really reconsider a keep. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete She did three episodes of prometime live that are airing in febuary and her episode of Law and Order will be on imdb but it takes a month from when the episode airs, the same with primetime live.Xscapefilms (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't base decisions upon unsupported claims about the future made by people with a pseudonym. As can be seen from the immediately preceding rationale, what we want here at Wikipedia are sources that cover this person, from which a biographical article can be written. Sources! Sources! Sources! Please cite some. It is your only valid argument. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~DO NOT Delete~~ She is also in the Nickelback "Rockstar" video that has been #1 on VH1 countdown and she is listed on the "Rockstar" Wikipedia page for that. So if this was removed people would not be able to click on her name and find out more about her, and isn't that what this site is about, a way for people to get more information about subjects they are interested in? Since she has had her own page her name on the rockstar listed has not been altered because people now know who she is and can verify it with her own wikipedia page.Xscapefilms (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote was slashed because this user has already voted once. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems nice-looking but not remotely notable enough (yet?)NBeale (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, actor has so far only appeared in bit parts. Fails WP:BIO. Welcome re-creation of article once she's got some serious roles under her acting belt. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band Element 115

Seemingly non-notable band, creator removed prod, suggests we deduct their notability from search engine results instead of sources. tomasz. 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete NN rock band. notability from search engine results instead of actual sources isn't how Wikipedia works. ~~This page is also a text book case of this essay (not like it matters to the deletion process, but the characteristics of a "bad garage band page" and this article is uncanny)~~ (there i've scratched it out. Happy?). Links to Gorillaz incorrectly (it links to it like this). They proclaim to be THE "classic rock band in Arizona" when in the Google search the band provides as a source, they come up as the SECOND link. The band is mentioned briefly in this article, which was also picked up by Fox News (Mind you, this Mark Evans article is NOT a review of the band. It only mentions the band in passing because their singer merely talked to Evans about the 60th anniversary of the Roswell incident.) Doc Strange (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the statement using the search engine reference was removed by author, wiki editor put it back in to try to prove his point.MediaMike (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]
Delete. There aren't enough sources establishing notability. The claim to the first virtual band member might be notable if true but there are no reliable sources establishing it. In any case, The Archies were probably the first. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the Archies to Element 115 is like comparing a comic book to a feature film. The Archies NEVER performed live, primarily because there were no live characters in the band. Element 115 has successfully combined living human beings and an animated character on stage live. The proof is in the video of the performances, and the reviews by real humans being.
Some references to prove the existence of said band, and the claims made in wiki article include
- FOX TV - Phoenix
- http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=1B27618B124AEA883C9BC49BE46D0F9E?contentId=2968090&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
- KTVK TV3 - Phoenix
- http://www.azfamily.com/gmaz/hotline/stories/KTVKGMAZ20071209.7a5ec4c0.html
- http://www.azfamily.com/gmaz/hotline/stories/KTVKGMAZ20070613.3fa98fe4.html **http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=23656030
- Synthesis Magazine - San Francisco
- http://blog.synthesis.net/2008/01/15/i-know-i-already-posted-a-band-youve-never-heard-of-band-of-the-day-but/#more-4236
- Kevin Smith Show - Internet broadcast, Phoenix
- http://kevinsmith.mypodcast.com/200711_archive.html
- MTV-2 New York
- http://mtv2ontherise.com/?cm=014493
- City of Roswell
- http://www.roswellufofestival.com/2007pics.htm
- CD Baby -
- http://cdbaby.com/cd/element115
- iTunes (Apple)
- http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa%252FviewAlbum%253FplayListId%253D268370877
- AZReporter.com
- http://www.azreporter.com/news/index.php?itemid=250
- Tucson Nightly
- http://www.tucsonnightly.com/Pictures.php?action=detail&g=photo1184977672
How many more do you need? MediaMike (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]
Having read the essay linked in "Doc Strange"s comment above, his assertion that the original posting of the Element 115 article has any similarity at all to said essay has no basis in fact, and that an "uncanny" resemblance exists is truly laughable. For brevity, the essay's "garage band" shall be referred to as GB, and the Element 115 article shall be referred to as "E-115."
1. The essay indicates a GB entry lacks capitalization. E-115 was grammatically proper. Author has taught English.
2. The essay indicates that GB entry has no formatting. E-115 had sophisticated formatting taken directly from the wiki article on the Rolling Stones. You may have heard of them. I recommend looking at the Rolling Stones entry and comparing its uncanny resemblance to E-115 as originally submitted.
3. Ironically, the edit created by wiki-editor lacks formatting, and has everything bunched up as essay indicates is improper. Was that done to "plant evidence" for wiki-editor argument?
4. GB has poorly formatted member list with irrelevant "accomplishments." E-115 has clean, nicely tabled member list.
5. Please note that nowhere in E-115 is the word "hardcore" used.
6. Element 115 CD is professionally duplicated and distributed with over 1,000 copies made.
7. Element 115 is NOT looking for new people (or aliens).
8. Element 115 headlined opening night of a 3 night festival which had Alan Parsons and War on the same stage as Element 115 on the following night. This is verifiable with references given.
9. Element 115's members are musicians, not plumbers or dry-wallers. Music is all they do. How much they make is none of your business.
10. Element 115 has been making music for 12 years. The current line up has been recording and performing for almost 2 years.
11. No claims of Battle of the Band winnings were in the article. Not even the 2nd place in MTV-2's contest in Phoenix.
12. Our rehearsal space is capable of 115db SPL and we've never had a cop or even a neighbor complain.
13. Others who have written about Element 115 have been banned from posting by dogmatic wiki-editors overzealous with their power to delete.
14. I quote the purple tag at the top of the "essay" page because it drives the nail in the coffin of wiki-editor argument: "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose."
It could be argued therefore, that wiki-editor using that reference should not be taken seriously. MediaMike (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]
- Comment i'm not using that as a reference (remember that I said "not like it matters"?). It is meant as a humor essay. lighten up. In fact, totally ignore I said that, you're taking things Too seriously. You should also read WP:MUSIC, too. THAT is a Wikipedia guideline (and you need sources too). Doc Strange (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BAND. No charted hit, record certified gold or higher, international tours or major music award, not even close. Plus: not "two or more albums on a major label", or "subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national [...] network" not close, just not close, to the standard of "extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources" required by WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND on multiple counts, particularly lack of charted songs and albums on major labels. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines can be more flexible than rules, as your lack of editing lesser accomplished, or less innovative acts indicates:
- Vintage_Rock_Group
- Dear_and_the_Headlights
- Hickey (band)
- A_Future_Loss
- Eastonashe
- Tuff (band)
- Let_Go (band)
- Dryspell
- Killwhitneydead.
- Speed (band)
- Naked_Prey
- The_Clare_Voyants
- Mean_Reds (band)
- Bombing_Neverland (tagged since 11/07)
- Mostly_Bears
- Lydia (band)
- The_Weird_Lovemakers
- Peachcake (AfD discussion)

**Nick_Sterling

- ~~DeSade~~
- ...ad infinitum...
I'll concede and withdraw until Element 115 meets the Guidelines as written, as long as those Guidelines apply to the above listed entries (and others) and you set for deletion those which fail to meet them. While some of those entries are unique and "notable" by my definition, they fail to meet yours. Some don't even have original material.
Element 115 has the unique feature of being the first U.S. band with a virtual member integrated in the show performing "live" with humans. The references cited back the claim. That, arguably, makes the band "notable." They will meet the rest of the criteria. It's only a matter of time. MediaMike (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry but are you comparing your band to Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine who have appeared on several national television programs like Jimmy Kimmel Live? and have appeared on the soundtrack to a major film? or mclusky who worked with a notable producer? or The Sugi Tap which features two members of Eve 6?. Look, Wikipedia isn't a game of WP:ALLORNOTHING, the fact is your band simply doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, "it's only a matter of time" isn't sufficient per WP:CRYSTAL, when your band DOES satisfy the rest of the WP:MUSIC criteria, then it is notable. Look, if Wikipedia existed in 1986 when Radiohead formed, and Thom Yorke decided to add his band to Wikipedia, the article would've gone through AFD because at the time they didn't meet WP:MUSIC. They would've become notable upon the release of Pablo Honey (their second release on a major label or a prominent indie label, their first being the Drill EP), they would've had sufficient notability. We're not saying your band is bad, we're just saying they're NN right now. Doc Strange (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please remember that, regardless of the individual notability of each band on that laundry list above (and you seem to have rather skimped on your research on some of them), "other stuff exists" is not considered a valid argument in deletion discussions. tomasz. 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: band fails WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My last entry was NOT an argument to avoid deletion. As stated, I capitulate to your argument of not meeting Wiki's stated criteria. Element 115's competition must meet the same criteria, however. I couldn't help but notice that you failed to comment on the first ten entries on the list. They are listed somewhat in magnitude of failing to meet the notability criteria (in my 60 minutes of cursory research). Not only does the first entry have no original product, it is CLEARLY less notable than Element 115. The fact that said entry still has no notice of pending deletion, indicates intentional inequity of at least the wiki-editors who have been informed of the insufficiently notable entry. Why do I care? Until that entry appeared in Wikipedia, they weren't showing up on the first page of a google search. Now, they intermittently show up ahead of Element 115, which has been number 1 for almost a year. That's how I got the idea to post Element 115 on wiki. It obviously helps search engine placement. I'm just asking for fair play in a viciously competitive market. Am I being unreasonable? 68.3.167.64 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING do not make good arguments. And you still haven't answered why Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine who have more than sufficient notability per WP:MUSIC are among these groups (you don't have to meet all the criterion, just most of them). Doc Strange (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've edited the list to those who DEFINITELY fail the requirements. Just because one I have lined-out may also fail, doesn't diminish the argument for removal of the remaining insufficiently qualified entrants (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING). Are you prepared to argue for defending the inclusion of Vintage_Rock_Group? 68.3.167.64 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]

You missed The Weird Lovemakers and Killwhitneydead., both definitely notable (although you seem to have struck off Eyes Set to Kill who in my opinion are a definite deletion. Thanks for the effort, i'll probably be nominating some other bands i wasn't aware of before as well. This is still not pertinent to this debate, however: the onus on you is to prove Element 115 is notable, not that Other Band X isn't. tomasz. 09:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read my capitulation statement two entries back. 68.3.167.64 (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]

ok. tomasz. 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even READ WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING? The first line of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". Which pretty much destroys your argument. You reasoning that your band is as notable as these other bands is pretty much useless. I'm not defending Vintage_Rock_Band (you can nominate them for deletion if you wish), but your reasoning is strange. Your band simply fails WP:MUSIC and this AfD is about your band, not Killwhitneydead., not Dryspell, not any other of these bands. Doc Strange (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, people, please visit the dictionary under the word "capitulate." Look, I'll save you the effort. I WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR INCLUSION. Please! Make my day! REMOVE THE ENTRY! I give! UNCLE! Ore kuppuku! I concede to your randomness!68.3.167.64 (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]

Delete, band fails WP:MUSIC, and also now speedyable under G7 and A3 I suspect. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Jedi

This article is an in-universe plot repetition without any references from multiple reliable sources, and as such is just a copy of the information to be found in articles on the Star Wars expanded universe. It is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have independant notability. So I support removal of the content, by either deleting and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or by only redirecting; probably to Star Wars: Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, which, as best I can tell (a claim to how poorly the article is written) is the relevant book. If not, redirect wherever it's from. As a side note, the book article's synopsis should be rewritten. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets no current criterion for deletion. WP:PLOT only applies to plots, and WP:FICTION lacks consensus. Any overlap with other articles is appropriate for this complicated fictional universe. DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has no reliable references, so it does not pass verifiability, which is not disputed or a guideline. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:FANCRUFT. The Star Wars Wiki more than covers this subject. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this subject does not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria, and Wookieepedia seems to have it covered adequately already. *** Crotalus *** 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fancruft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. Mh29255 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Showers (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, in which the location most prominently appears. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable fancruft, location is not notable in the real world. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, allowing for redirect creation. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Force pull

Non-notable force ability that could be mentioned in one sentence in the various articles on the force, does not assert any individual notability through multiple reliable sources, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to indicate independentAt www.dealcatcher.com/olive-garden-coupons notability for this plot element. As such, I support removal of the content, either by deleting and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or only a redirect. The redirect target should be Force power as the most applicable target article currently in existence. I believe that the Force power article should be redirected to Force (Star Wars) as it is an inappropriate article, but until any such action, it is the most appropriate place for the redirect. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Does not require AfD for this. DGG (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any useful information on this is already present at Force power#Core. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the term "Force Pull" was not used in any of the films, those references all constitute original research. And, without that, there's not much left. I don't think this article can ever grow beyond stub status while meeting verifiability standards. *** Crotalus *** 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Force power#Core per others. No need to keep a nonnotable OR-inviting permastub around forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crotalus. Barring a reliable source that canonizes this expression, it should not be a redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xanatos (Star Wars)

Yet another non-notable plot repetition taken from the Star Wars expanded universe that is written from an in-universe perspective with no demonstration of notability through multiple reliable sources. As such, it is just repeating the plot of the Jedi Apprentice series and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, an article about a plot element of the Extended Universe needs to be rife with real-world sources if it exists, even more than the original six movies. This lacks them. I support deletion of this article. I do not believe it should be recreated as a redirect, as no one will search for it with the (Star Wars) appendage. Unlink at the disambig page, but leave the entry. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets no current criterion for deletion. WP:PLOT only applies to plots, not characters and WP:FICTION lacks consensus. Any overlap with other articles is appropriate for this complicated fictional universe. "In universe perspective" means only not acknowledging it as a fiction. DGG (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NOTE? seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Honestly I don't care about this article. I only created it because "Xanatos" by default led to an article about this Star Wars character, and I felt that there were other "Xanatoses" that needed to be mentioned, namely the main antagonist from the TV show Gargoyles. However, in spite of my indifference, I see no reason to delete the article, as it is information that SOMEONE probably finds useful. It doesn't hurt wikipedia in any way for the article to remain. Godheval (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, your rationale has nothing to do with the nominating concerns, and you cite criteria and "references" that either don't exist or don't apply. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:FANCRUFT. Xanatos is covered at the Star Wars wiki. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability, and already exists on Wookieepedia. *** Crotalus *** 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable character and plot summary/trivia; change Xanatos disambig page to redirect to Star Wars: Jedi Apprentice or whatever work this character most significantly appears in. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our presentational standards by being organized and does have published references listed in addition to coming from one of the most notable fictional universes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, your argument completely ignores the nominating rationale, and refers to "references" that aren't there and guidelines that don't apply. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have sources that verify Xanatos as Star Wars character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, character with no wide notability outside of the Star Wars Extended Universe. Just a plot regurgitation, hence fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand comedians

This orphaned article is nothing but a list of comedians in which it only duplicates Category:New Zealand comedians. While I could have simply speedy deleted that article per lack of context, I've send it here if anyone has another idea. I suggest Delete. JForget 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft that regurgitates something that already exists in a better form Doc Strange (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category works better for this type of thing. Maybe New Zealand comedy is different from that of somewhere else, but you won't know it from this indiscriminate list. Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicates category. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a superfluous list that adds nothing not already covered by the category. RMHED (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better as a category. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher Tax Cut Act

Proposed legislation that has little chance at passing. No discussion in Congress about the bill, and the only mention of the bill in the media is limited to a couple of teacher advocacy publications which merely confirm its existence, and Ron Paul's . Allow for recreation without prejudice if it passes. Burzmali (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or coverage because...

It's just a bill.

Yes, it's only a bill.
And it's sitting there on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While it's sitting in committee,
But who knows if it'll be a law some day
At least some hope and pray that it will

But today it is still just a bill.

-- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof positive that the lessons of Schoolhouse Rock were indeed memorable. Say, do you know "Conjunction Junction"? Mandsford (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article cites a secondary source, and there are almost 800 google hits. It is likely that people will search for information on pending legislation. Boowah59 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: which secondary source do you think establishes notability? Government documents show existence, but every single bill ever introduced will result in a document. The other references don't seem to mee WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two non-government reliable secondary sources.[81][82] I have to admit I'm something of an inclusionist when it comes to pending legislation. I would not mind one bit if we had an article on every bill stalled in committee in the Guatemalan parliament. MilesAgain (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both sources are special interest groups, and the first article is just five sentences in total. These don't really look like something that would meet WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable bill on a path to nowhere. I sense the Ron Paul maniacs have something to do with this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and that's how a Bill becomes a Deleted Article. ViperSnake151 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ronpaulinalia cleverly disguised as a non-notable bill. As above, there is no indication that this bill is going anywhere except to oblivion. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania

fails notability, provides no independent sources that it even exists, suspect that this is a vanity page T L Miles (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no verifiability, no evidence of notability. I do object, however, to the violation of our assumption of good faith present in the nominator's language (and venomously present in the article's talk page, by the way). Full disclosure: I was a candidate for National Secretary of the SPUSA back in 1977 and am on good terms with the SP here in Milwaukee. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm sorry I'm violating assumption of good faith: but please note that the person with whom I was conversing has, amongst other things, been editing a real organization's wiki page (Social Democrats USA) to place his friends in charge of it, as well as populating this page and another to make his small # of friends appear to be an actual political party. I feel, with all due respect, that this fellow has moved well beyond any assumption of good faith. I too am a member of the SPUSA, (New York City Local: note there is no wiki page for this local: I don't think it's notable) but have no problem with other organizations existing, as long they're not using Wikipedia to pretend to be something they're not. T L Miles (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:ORG. This organization at one point had a Web site, which was shut down last year (diff). The only remaining external link on the page points to a site that does not list this organization as a state affiliate, as claimed in the article -- only a contact person is listed in Pennsylvania (link). From all I can tell, the Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania is defunct, shut down shortly after it was created, without accomplishing anything notable in couple of months it existed. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If the three here went to the older Social Democrats, USA website and called the phone numbers you'll find they no longer rings at that office. In fact the Washington, D.C. office is not there anymore.

The SDPPA was never closed and is not cited as being such above.

Groups are not reqired to give out membership information unless required by state law.

The lack of "good faith" is in personal attacks at Wikipedia taken by several members of the Socialist Party of the United States of America, due to the 2007 split within the party, to try and clear any association or dogma that isn't secular enough for them to attempt erasing. Socialist Party USA members have no business editing Social Democrats, USA as it is a conflict of interest.

Read Statues 3.5 ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS of the SI members to see we don't have to be listed, not required, to be a member. Also note that the page quoted in past personal attacks was dated in 2000 and does not reflect current membership within the SI.

Since under SI "3.5 Associated" we are in formal reorgaization and have not voted nor are required to list official "affiliates," but only those who are respective state contact "organizers."

Social Democrats, USA has an elected Officer who is running party business and it is Gabe Ross even if no one here likes this fact. Internal party business is not anyone's concern here except to those who are due paying members which no one so far here is except me. Comraderedoctober (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum: This is a copy of the email from the official source:

"After some further inspection of the article, we decided to leave the mark for deletion uncontested. The arguments raised against the article are valid in many ways and would require extensive work to combat. A much simpler solution would be to wait until after the convention in June. At that point, the article will be easily rewritten, including the historic and continuing significance of the Party, making it far harder to contest.

If you have any suggestions or input, we would appreciate hearing them. Atlee, thank you for all your efforts in this matter."

Peace, Gabe Ross Comraderedoctober (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know nothing of the subject, but note that its General Secretary and that of SDP of USA (which has no WP page) appear to be the same man. It cites a webpage for the USA party, but that has very little apparent content. The USA party claims to be 110 years old. If that is correct, I would have expected some one to have written a WP page on it. My assumption is thus that this is a very minor entity and hence NN. If I am right it should not only be deleted but salted to prevent recreation, but as I say i know nothing of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail notability per WP:ORG.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I would welcome a verifiable article on this subject, this article fails on that count. The confusion on the part of user Peterkingiron above is central, though, to the problem of this article. The writer objecting above has vandalised the Social Democrats USA wikipedia article, and has created his new version of the SDP (in real life) in order to latch on these known organizations which are now defunct. Thus the article under discussion has innacurate claims to importance when it is in fact a paper organization of a handful of people who either quit or were ejected from the SPUSA last year. These articles, along with Fist and Rose Tendency were writen using innaccurate, uncited information making grand claims of importance. I only first listed the article under discussion for deletion after finding no citations that this org was still active, and after I'd edited three of the four articles mentioned to try and bring some sort or balance to them (and taking much abuse from User:Comraderedoctober (Atlee Yarrow) because of this). Unfortunatly this editor seems to have no interest in documenting his claims for these organization, but rather to use wikipedia as a promotional device for each of the goups which he and a couple of his friends run . I would ask, therefore, that this article be deleted until such time as ANY citation of its current existance be found, and that some completely neutral editors bring Social Democrats USA, Fist and Rose Tendency, and any article on a modern recration of the SDP-USA up to a baseline standard on notibility and verifiability. T L Miles (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources that attest to the notability of this party. WP:ORG and whatnot. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Boylan

Fails WP:BIO. Unnnotable person who has no "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", does not have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult', and who has not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the entertainment field. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as host of a notable TV show [83] despite paucity of ghits. JJL (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree with that considering the Wikipedia article on the show is no longer than his. :P We also have hosts of much more notable shows that also do not have articles. Notability does not inherit. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Collectonian's rationale. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Benea (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. I tried Google but couldn't find any reliable sources for this person. ― LADY GALAXY 01:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many more hits under "Alex Boylan" than the article as named: [84], [85], [86], [87]. For inclusion in the ext. links at the article: [88], [89]. JJL (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I suppose it's rather unfortunate the article uses his full name. There's this Wikipedia rule that articles should be named to what they're most commonly known as. Otherwise it gets too confusing. ― LADY GALAXY 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean we can't use as citations stuff that refers to him as Alex, when it's clearly still him. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per JJL's proof of notability. The fact that some have said "I found nothing on Google" despite that clearly not being the case when JJL searched is slightly suspicious. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Needs multiple reliable sources. NBeale (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and I'm not sure that Animal Attractions Television is a notable programme either (or, at least, notable enough to confer notability on its host). Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, hoax is not a speedy delete criterion. Kurykh 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Iris Willis

Hoax. There are zero Google hits for "Daphne Iris Willis", every single one of the links in the article is bogus. There is an unknown singer on Myspace named Daphne Willis... Corvus cornix_talk 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all -- this article is hoaxlicious (can I get a trademark on that?). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image sources to http://www.janetmcnaughton.ca/TDfashion.html, which says that the image is of Clementina Wallack. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete article and image. I would do so myself if I weren't going to dinner in a few minutes. In addition to the other evidence, the article and image represent the creator's sole contributions to Wikipedia—never a good sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Previous posters said it all. Even if that singer was the same person they mention in this article, the article says this person was born in 1910. She would be at least 97 years old right now, I don't think anyone in their nineties would want to do Hollywood and MySpace. It would probably be the last thing on their minds. ― LADY GALAXY 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another day, another hoax. The fact that the image is of someone else pretty much shoots it in the foot Doc Strange (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, couldn't a single reference to this person anywhere.--Ѕandahl 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per WP:HOAX. Gromlakh (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Ja, agree that it is a WP:HOAX. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Note that hoaxes themselves do not come under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Canley (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude 12/21

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prelude 12/21

This is a non-notable, non-single song. All the information contained in the song page is already on its album's page. No additional sources can be found and there is basically nothing more to tell about the song other than that it has a secret beginning. Tim meh ! 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to article about the album. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Decemberunderground No comment. ― LADY GALAXY 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Decemberunderground if all the noteworthy information is already located there in the first place Doc Strange (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Decemberunderground. Song is clearly not notable on its own. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean A. Wright

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There was a sufficient claim to notability in the article to avoid A7. I'm moving this to AFD for further discussion. Procedural listing, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was created by Seanwrightmd (talk · contribs), possibly the article's subject. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the article was written by the article subject or not, it doesn't meet notability. It is also unreferenced and needs some serious cleanup. ― LADY GALAXY 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't come near to a pass of WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Would be a clear A7 if the author hadn't substituted "award" for "bursary". Tevildo (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as all other comments. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only mention of external notability seems to be that his marriage was featured in the nytimes & philly inquirer, which I don't think is relevant to his professional abilities. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references found supporting notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Asserts published papers, though only a few, so not a speedy. A7 doesnt depend on the exact wording. Being on the society pages is probably not accepted here as notability, but that's an interesting qy.--the NYT is fairly selective. DGG (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very minor interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Doesn't qualify past WP:BIO. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appearing in the wedding pages isn't really a good indicator of notability. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). See explanation on talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrzakulov equations

Notability concerns. Original research. --Michel_312^talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.88.60 (talk • contribs)

Comment This listing was previously tacked onto another AfD; I fixed the listing. Also, the username in question is not registered, as the edit was made by the IP 85.140.88.60. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article is messy and contains a ton of headings, however not much text to go along with it. Google only brings up 1,180 hits for this term. ― LADY GALAXY 00:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What WP:CSD criterion does it fail? A1? But the context is established in the opening line. Being unfinished isn't (or shouldn't be) grounds for deletion. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably #1 and/or #11. ― LADY GALAXY 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid speedy delete request A badly written article is not, and never will be grounds for any type of deletion. {{sofixit}} - Fosnez (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about #11? ― LADY GALAXY 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals, so not OR. I'm not a physicist, so can't really comment on notability, but I don't see any particular reason to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical physics and mathematics. Tevildo (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvements per above. Headers need to be made more consistent and someone with expertise on this matter should perhaps clarify the topic along with some of the equations.--Naruttebayo (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvements. Original research. I'm a theoretical physicist and mathematician and works in this field of research. As the expert I think thast this article is a very good one. So I don't see also any particular reason to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical and mathematical physics and mathematics. --Ngn, 21 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've forgotten to add, that your're the author of this research :) Look here: [90]--85.140.89.48 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not the author of this research and not the author of these equations. You've "forgotten" that the author of this research and the author of these equations is Myrzakulov. I see that you are a russian user and very want to delete this article following not scientific point of view. --Ngn, 21 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're the close friend of the author of this research, don't you? And maybe you're even the co-author of most of his works, am I right? And yes, I'm a russian user, and I want to delete this article following the reason, that it's an unnotable OR. "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop discussing the editors and start discussing the article. You can start by explaining why your assertion that these equations don't exist is in stark contradiction to all of the papers and articles cited in the References and Further reading sections of the article. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please, find someone, who understand Russian and ask him to read this topic [91]. There are all reasons with links in this topic. I can say in general,
      1. editor of this article - is the author of this theory or relative (maybe co-author)
      2. there are no records of these equations in indepentent works, google doesn't know anything about them.
      3. articles that editor mentiones as proofes of notability of this theory are made by his co-authors
      4. You can't find any mention about this equations in reference books.
      5. At last, editor is cheating - voting for this article under different nicknames from same IP (as anonimous) (in Russian Wiki).
    - Please, study it in depth. Maybe with help from expert in phisics (magnetism). It's a 100% self-PR. Sorry for my poor English. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of which addresses the fact that the things cited are things published in Physics Letters, the Journal of Mathematical Physics, and the Journal of Physics A. Do you have any explanation for your denying the existence of these sources, which appear to be experts in physics (including Ratbay Myrzakulov, Ph.D., of the Institute of Physics and Technology, MES, Kazakhstan) writing in their fields of expertise and publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals of physics? Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't assert, that there is no such sources or such articles. They exist, of course. But these sources is not neutral. I deny the term "Myrzakulov equations", becouse it is not in use by noone exсept Myrzakulov and several his co-autors. This term is unrecognized, and it's a great honour to name equation after his author, and this honour Myrzakulov declair for himself by himself. Maybe this equations are correct, but his value for science is not admit. You may look: [92] or [93]. You see? Nobody except Lakshmanan and Nugmanova (his coautors: see References and Further reading) use this term. In Russian Wiki we proved that at least some of "Zhen-Huan Zhang, Ming Deng, Wei-Zhong Zhao, and Ke Wu" are also concerned to him. It's a OR, that using 4-5 scientists in the world, and all of them was his coauthors. Compare: [94] (from which these equation was received). Add to this that fact, that editor is Myrzakulov himself or Nurmanova (look in History) and you'll find a pure General criteria #11. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This user (85.140.89.48) is absolutely not correct. Here I present my reply to some points from his message:
    1. His assertion-1: editor of this article - is the author of this theory or relative (maybe co-author)
    2. My reply: I’m not author of this theory and of these equations. I'm a former research student of Myrzakulov.
    3. His assertion-2: there are no records of these equations in indepentent works, google doesn't know anything about them.
    4. My reply: There are some records of these equations in independent publications in English (written by the different authors and from different countries), which I can send to any users who want. Just give me your e-mail. Some of these independent publications in English (written by different authors which are experts in this researech field) are published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals (please see Further reading section of the article).
    5. His assertion-3: articles that editor mentiones as proofes of notability of this theory are made by his co-authors
    6. My reply: Only one author namely Lakshmanan is the coauthor of Myrzakulov. All other authors of these independent publications are not coauthors of Myrzakulov.
    7. His assertion +1(from his message of 11:36, 21 January 2008): "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist.
    8. My reply: Really speaking I don't know how reply. May be I ask him please prove for us in detail that "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist. Just I would like to note that in Ru.Wiki arise same problems from this user. May be it is related with the fact that I and/or Myrzakulov not from Russia? As I and/or Myrzakulov are citizens of Kazakhstan may be I must put this article in Kazakh Wiki? May be here some correct reasons? Please explain for us if you have any objective arguments to delete this my article. OK? --Ngn, 21 January 2008

Forward to pure lie, Ms. Nugmanova, correct? Let's imagine some national motives? :) The last chance? It's a slander, and in tradition of Wikipedia to proove such declaration. --85.140.89.48 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I also think that in tradition of Wikipedia at least En.Wiki to prove any assertions. So I would like ask you dear user 85.140.89.48 (which is I think Dmitry Rozhkov, a russian user from Ru.Wiki): "Please prove that "Myrzakulov equations" are not exist?".

Please also one more see References and Further reading sections of the article. --Ngn, 21 January 2008

Delete. No notability (WP:PROF) and self-advertisement. There are only two papers, written by one Chinese group, which mention the Myrzakulov equations. Frankly speaking, it is just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations. Note that there is no article about these famous and very important equations in the Wikipedia. Author prefered to create an article about their own particular equations instead writting about more significant and general ones. --RedAndr (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid delete request. Keep with improvements. Because here more than 14 publications in english in which mentioned "Myrzakulov equations" or their short nane for example "M-I equation", "M-VIII equation", "M-IX equation" or their synonyms "Myrzakulov system", " Myrzakulov magnetic models". Please see References and Examples 1-23 in Further reading sections of the article. --Ngn, 01:45, 22 January 2008
Two questions to user RedAndr:

Question-1: please prove in detail mathematically and/or physically that "Myrzakulov equations" are "just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations"?

Question-2: please prove in detail mathematically and/or physically that for example "the Myrzakulov-I equations" (shortly M-I equation) are "just a pretty special case of Landau-Lifshitz equations"?. --Ngn, 02:07, 22 January 2008

Do you think I have so much time to do mathematical exercises like to derive M-I equation from LLE just to prove you something?

Anyway I do not need to prove it, author did it himself, see for example:

"Here, it should be mentioned that the M-XX equation [Myrzakulov XX] is not the only integrable generalization of the LLE [Landau-Lifshitz equation] in 2+1 dimensions. There exist several another integrable generalizations, e.g the following one: <...> This equation, which is known as the Myrzakulov I (M-I) equation, is again completely integrable."

You can say "generalization" sounds better than "specialization", however here it does not matter, so-called Myrzakulov equations are just some kind of the Landau-Lifshitz equations, whatever general or special. And again, I must stress that there are only a few publications refering to Myrzakulov equations, which is too little to be so significant and notable to create an article about it in the Wikipedia. BTW, could you please list all of them, of course excluding preprints and works with co-authors? RedAndr (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrei Borisovich Ryzhkov (your name I took from RuWiki) or equivalently RedAndr. I already know that you are a chemist that is you are not expert in this research field, but you make some scientific assertions in this scientific area. It is not seriously from your side. As you are not expert in this difficult area nonlinear theoretical and mathematical physics it is not good from your side that your request "delete" this article (see, your message from 19:31, 21 January 2008). As the expert in this area I inform you that in the classical theory of magnetism there are several famous nonlinear equations: classical Landau-Lifshitz equation, Heisenberg ferromagnet equation and so on. But after discovery theory of solitons (that is after 1967) there were constructed some new nonlinear equations of magnets like: Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations and so on some of which are integrable from soliton point of view and admit different class of soliton-like solutions. Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations not follow (mathematically or physically) from Landau-Lifshitz equation or Heisenberg ferromagnet equation. --Ngn, 03:57, 22 January 2008
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, you're right, I'm not a theoretician and for me ME looks pretty like LLE. The only I just read from author that Myrzakulov equations are generalization of the Landau-Lifshitz equations. Therefore, I'd prefer to hear an opinion of independent expert in this field. I wrote to friend of mine, who is quite experienced in such kind of equations, and asked for his opinion. --RedAndr (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also many thanks to you dear Andrei. We can continue our discussion today evening. Just I would like to note that

1. all these new nonlinear equations (Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yremchuk equation, (2+1)-dimensional Myrzakulov equations) which were constructed after 1967, are some new, not trivial with rich nature, multidimensional generalizations of the (1+1)-dimensional isotropic LLE.

2. some of these new nonlinear equations (Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yremchuk equation, Myrzakulov equations) are integrable. At the same time LLE in general case is not integrable as and Heisenberg ferromagnet equation. --Ngn, 05:16, 22 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.75.101 (talk)

My friend answered he hasn't heard about ME from other scientists neither in papers nor at meetings, only from author's papers. He's an expert in solitons, professor of mathematics, wrote a few papers about Ishimori equations. Therefore, I belive him, these equations aren't so well-known in scientific world, its notability isn't enough yet to be honoured with an article in Wikipedia. Sorry, I would recommend you to wait a little bit and create articles about a really important equations like LLE or Ishimoi in this time. I think your supervisor would agree with me. --RedAndr (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To prove notability or not notability (=unnotability) of "Myrzakulov equations" that is the article, we must work with the real facts but not with opinions of our friends. I think that here more important the articles of independent authors (where were mentioned "Myrzakulov equations") than opinions of your and/or my friends. Some of these articles in which mentioned "Myrzakulov equations" I presented in Further reading section of the article (see Examples 1-23). --Ngn, 22:47, 24 January 2008
Delete pending confirmation by a subject expert. According to Web of Science, Myrzakulov has published 14 papers. The most cited of them, no. 3. in this article has been cited 17 times only , by a fairly limited circle of authors: his group, and the CZ Qu group. none of them have been cited by any papers published in any of the parts of Physical Review, the most prestigious group of physics journals. None of them has been referred to by a review article. If the Qu group is related, as asserted here, then certainly nobody outside the research groups themselves has noticed. Even if it isn't, that is very limited interest. I conclude that this is not a discovery that has evoked significant interest among physicists, even in the specialty. DGG (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Invalid delete request. Keep with improvements. There are several independent publications in which were mentioned "Myrzakulov equations" or their equivalent short names for example "M-I equation", "M-VIII equation", "M-IX equation" or their synonyms "Myrzakulov system", "Myrzakulov magnetic models". [Please see References and Examples 1-23 in Further reading sections of the article]. The authors of these independent publications from Spain, Canada, USA, Russia, Poland, China, India, Germany, Greece, France and so on. These authors are a theoretical physicists and/or mathematicians. Also they are a well-known experts in this research area (nonlinear physics and mathematics). Some of these their publications (from Examples 1-23) were published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals (also as the original Myrzakulov's results in which were presented his equations). So these their publications (Examples 1-23) can be considered as the Proof notability of Myrzakulov equations that is the article. Also I would like to note that I don't assert that these equations are a discovery that have "evoked significant interest among physicists". Just I assert that these equations are a new scientific results which have and will have a good applications in nonlinear physics and mathematics. And in this sense can be publish in En-Wiki. (What in Wiki must publish only "a discovery that has evoked significant interest among physicists, even in the specialty"?). So I conclude (after User:Tevildo) that I don't see any particular reasons "to delete this one article from among our many equation-heavy articles on theoretical physics and mathematics". At last as the author of the article I would like to ask anybody who has a good english to improve the English of the article. I will try to complete the article during a few days. One more sorry for my poor English. --Ngn, 26 January 2008

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

Delete. I am working in this and related areas for more than 20 years, and published about 30 papers on closely related subjects. However, I have never heard or read about ME before. It's 100% clear that assigning the name of Myrzakulov to any of these equations contradicts any normal practice, and these equations are called this way only by Myrzakulov himself and maybe his students. Probably, there was a classification attempt by Myrzakylov, which, however, did not become well-known. This attempt might be mentioned in the text of some other article, but definitely does not deserve a separate article. The aspect of self-promotion is obvious, but is not the main reason for this opinion. That should be a typical situation for a source like Wiki, and an efficient mechanizm should be developed to prevent articles of this kind (de facto spam) to misrepresent the subject.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Dimitri

Contested CSD, notability concerns. Keilana^talk 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment. Potentially notable if sources are provided. Certainly not A7 territory. Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references to Dimitri in reliable sources. Favour keeping as a stub and tagging it for sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article will still be eligible for deletion under WP:V until the sources are in it. They may exist, but we need to actually have them. Tevildo (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment. Here you go, add them as you see fit. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, per news archives. May need to be stubbified. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources. They just need to be added to the article. Tim meh ! 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references to multiple reliable sources are added to the article. It's not enough to claim that there are "plenty of good sources" the article needs to cite at least a few of them. NBeale (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found multiple reliable sources establishing notability. New York Times article, NYT review, and another NYT review should do it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plogger

No indication of why this open-source photo software package is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kinds of things make an entry notable? I read a few of the core Wiki entries, and quite frankly I don't see why this is not notable. Do I need to gather blog entries about how much people like it or something? Do I have to find out what websites use this gallery? It is a very useful, developer-friendly piece of software, and it is available for free to the public. It is easy to install, easy to use, and lots of people use it. I don't understand what more could be needed to be "notable."
Also keep in mind that this IS NOT ADVERTISING. I simply want to provide information about the software, because I feel that people should be able to access the information, similar to how they would access information about Coppermine, or any of the other photo gallery software.
Thanks, Aurachron (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't reviewed this yet to see if I agree with the nom. However, you can find information on the notability requirements of businesses at WP:CORP and products of companies at WP:PRODUCT. Note that the nomination is not currently accusing this article of being spam. Redfarmer (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose I am simply misunderstanding why there are so many other articles available on Wikipedia Photo Gallery Comparison that often contain less useful content than I have provided. Keep in mind I have nothing against policy on Wikipedia, but I'm just bothered by the fact that a lot of the articles on the comparison page I listed can exist without scrutiny. I guess it just seems like if the topic of these open-source photo galleries is notable enough for that many people to write articles about them and compare them, then why can't I add one more to the list so that people can have the information available to them?
    Thanks,
    Aurachron (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that in addition to what you've already been pointed to you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at this point. We aren't discussing those other articles. We are discussing this article. Please address it, making an argument that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lets take a look at some articles that feature and give credit/support to plogger:
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]

Does any of that give notability? Aurachron (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source, as it is highly ranked by users on HotScripts, a popular web development script resource: Plogger on HotScripts. In addition to this, there are numerous positive reviews on the same site Plogger Reviews. Here is another similar page with many positive reviews, and on this site it is rated 'excellent' Plogger on Web Script Directory. Aurachron (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a chance, actually. The author seems to really want to expand this article, and Google turns up over 300,000 results. ― LADY GALAXY 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with LADY GALAXY. The product is legitimate, and seems to have quite a few users. The problem is the lack of citations, even though there seem to be some moderately useful ones around. I will go ahead and add a few from Aurachron's list, above, and see what else I can locate, too. Tim Ross·^talk 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for a lack of a lot of sources, but there are a lot online -- I'm relatively new to posting things in Wikipedia, but I feel that this product deserves to have information available on Wikipedia. I will try to locate some more articles that may be useful for other visitors. Thanks for giving my entry consideration!

Aurachron (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are still no reliable sources which would support notability in the article. (also the article gives little or no useful information, though this is a very secondary point. But what is the point of an article that says almost nothing about a non-notable topic?) NBeale (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source - I would say it just about scrapes in being notable. It just needs adequate sourcing. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians Coalition for Injectable Safety

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanize. DodgerOfZion (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too COI and advertising to be salvageable. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per my nom. non salvageable spam--Hu12 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an example of self-promotion. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's almost an advertisement. ― LADY GALAXY 01:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Jedi. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Twenty (Star Wars)

This article does not assert notability through multiple reliable references, and as such is just a stubby in-universe plot repetition that should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Jedi. I agree this isn't a notable subject on its own, but it seems like it would fit within the realm of that article. I think, although I can't prove this anywhere, that the character of Count Dooku was a part of this group, and if so, I'd think that, since he was a major character in Attack of the Clones and a minor one in Revenge of the Sith, that real world information might be found on this concept. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand At present the article is inadequate. I am not sufficiently knowledgable to know if the names and roles of all the fictional characters in this group are known: if they are, it might serve as a useful way or organizing the material.DGG (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems Jedi#The_Lost_Twenty already covers this in greater detail, and this article is otherwise orphaned. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jedi The article itself seems to serve no interest from an out-of-universe persepective. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jedi. This is no "May the Force be with you." I see no indication of this phrase (and the article is specifically about a phrase) being notable enough to warrant its own article; nor, for that matter, is there any indication that this article could ever develop beyond a stub, so adding the existing paragraph to the main Jedi article should be fine. 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, merge into some Star Wars article, dunno which one-RedShiftPA (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Halbert

Assertion of notability not backed up by third party sources. The article seems to be a spam ad for own website. Emana (Talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's terrible as it stands, but the subject gets tens of thousands of Google hits. However, there don't seem to be many reliable sources that I can track down, anyhow, that indicate strong notability. Weak delete unless someone turns up some solid reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral.~~ Tons of ghits, but that may be engineered. He's been investigated by the SEC, though: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/app18359.htm. Surely there must be some press about this guy? Pburka (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like it's 100% self promotion and link farms. Very sophisticated, but no indication of notability beyond the SEC investigation. Pburka (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and opinions are present throughout the article. Google search turns up very few third party sources, which are probably not reliable. Tim meh ! 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, too short, and original research. He probably does not meet notability, either. ― LADY GALAXY 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and extremely random. Seems like just any random person who you might meet at your neighborhood. Mythdon (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR and possibly WP:NN. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the tone of the article is frankly terrible, and reads more like a glowing obit than a proper encyclopædia article. I'm reasonably certain this guy fails notability criteria, as well. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, wrong venue, taken to MFD instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mythdon/user info

I wish for somebody to delete one of my user subpages. Its called User:Mythdon/user info, a user subpage i made that uses infobox functions, but I no longer find use for it, as it seems worse than userboxes anyway. User:Mythdon/user info is used for the same purpose as userboxes, but does not use any userboxes, and functions of an infobox instead. I don't wan't this subpage anymore. Mythdon (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article underwent substantial revision from the time it was first nominated for deletion, and now has nearly twenty references, little or no unsourced opinion or original research, and has an encyclopedic tone. It also contains content that better serves the project as a stand-alone article, rather than being merged into Cloverfield. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield (creature)

there is NO information outside of what is seen in the movie, and the movie explains nothing. DurinsBane87 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the forthcoming manga will though. AstroNerdBoy (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, though. If the manga reveals information, it might lead to article creation. But we can't make one with the information we have now, and it's against policy to make one "just in case." DurinsBane87 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, as there are no sources other than the film. Obviously, interviews with producers and the director may yield some information, but the article even notes that those sources have provided "contradictory" information, rendering it at least somewhat unreliable. Though a cleanup issue, the language is speculative, with "perhaps" and "at least" indicating that the facts the article presents are not clear. Unless some authoritative information comes out - and I agree that the subject would be notable in that case - we don't need an article. The film's article seems to cover the bulk of this material well enough. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per WP:HEY, as the article has greatly improved. I'd still like to see more sources, but the version in place is satisfactory. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we can remove the contradictory info if needed and simply use the movie and any other entires in this possible franchise as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CRYSTAL -- you've mentioned that this is a "possible franchise", but we don't know for sure if it will be. At the moment, all we can determine is that this is an entity's singular appearance. It is not the norm to create a stand-alone article for such an entity, especially with all these interpretations. There is sufficient information in the last paragraph at Cloverfield#Production, and that can be expanded if necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. “Original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big D OR--71.97.143.232 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Movie is still new, give the article time to develop. Antichris (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this creature is limited to this singular appearance in one film, the summary style should be followed. The film article Cloverfield is hardly too long, and the creature is discussed at Cloverfield#Production (in real-world context, no less). Information about the creature should grow there, and discussion can take place about branching off when the information is overabundant. It's a knee-jerk reaction to assume at this point that this article is capable of growing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article. Mainly because as time goes on the more information about the creature will come out and this article will be useful. Also I do not see why can't the Film = a source of information as other film related articles do the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.157.85 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CRYSTAL, this is a textbook case. Further, if this creature was signifigantly notable, the movie would be one valid resource. But according to WP:FICT, it needs others to justify a separate article, and there is no reason to believe any exist. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my comment above. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. Wow, I never would've guessed I'd vote this way, but the quality has seriously improved, and it contains enough content to potential justify the split per WP:SUMMARY. -Verdatum (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because this is one entity in one film. This article is purely original research based on the in-universe information. The film article Cloverfield serves as a far better location for talking about all aspects of the film, including the creature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Son of Kong and as it is a monster from the highest grossing January release film that already has manga, DVD release, and sequel talk. In addition to phenemonal viral marketing and internet speculation concerning the monster and its origins, the montser itself was even spoofed on The Soup this past Friday and thus has notability outside the film. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, we don't create separate articles on entities' singular appearances, and it's no reason why a creature should have its own article outside of the film as opposed to any human character or one-time creature design. In addition, every film has a DVD release which replicates the media and is film-centric, so your point here is moot. Also, the manga will be film-related, not just creature-related, so there's no reason for it to go beyond the boundaries of the film article at this point. Also, talk of a sequel is not set in stone -- to assume that the creature will continue its "career" is flat-out crystal balling. Lastly, being spoofed is not an automatic seal of stand-alone article notability, as the spoof is based on the film's success, not the creature's success, as you pointed out how the film made such a big splash in January. The film article can easily cover the creature in depth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research with no secondary sources, not notable outside the context of the film. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-notable character of a notable movie. Contradictory statements are nothing special or new on Wikipedia, each can be presented seperate and debate noted.--Molobo (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entities do not warrant stand-alone articles when they have singular appearances. There are many "notable" characters that only appear once in "notable" films, and the articles about the films cover them. Per WP:SS, there should be a reason why the creature is recognized of its own accord outside the film. This has not been done -- all the recognition of this creature is based on one film, whose article has sufficient room for detailing the creature with appropriate sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, incorrect. The monster has appeared well befor the movie in ARG, which spawned enourmous internet debate on several webpages, forums, discussion groups, and even TV. --Molobo (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The viral marketing campaign was designed to promote the film, which has the creature in it as a major entity. The campaign was not at all focused on promoting the creature apart from the film. There is no reason to separate the entity from the film at this point with only one major appearance. It cannot be assumed to be on the scale of Godzilla or King Kong at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself the monster appeared outside the movie in various media. Thus the claim that it appears only in the movie is incorrect.--Molobo (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The media it appears in outside the movie is not independent from the movie. This is explicitly described in WP:FICT which is a logical extension of WP:N. You could make the same argument of "No, it was in the movie and the commercial for the movie, that's two separate sources!!" I'm afraid I don't buy it. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it only appears in the film. I said this: ...all the recognition of this creature is based on one film. The creature only appears in conjunction with the marketing for the film and the film itself and cannot be determined as notable outside of that realm. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There at least needs to be a page dedicated to the Cloverfield monster, explaining at least in visual what it appears to look like in comparison to existing earth creatures (Since we have nothing concrete to go on that explains what exactly it is in detail), and to reveal other possible information pertaining to the monster from the viral tie-ins. Regulate fan speculation based on wild and original imagination, sure. But the Cloverfield creature is as essential as note-worthy as the movie itself, since the movie is about the creature. Plus, it would be more organized if the Cloverfield creature had it's own seperate article away from the main Cloverfield film article, if there's ever going to be a mention on the monster itself anywhere on Wikipedia. SouthernStang93 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there "need" to be a separate page? This creature is known because of its one appearance in Cloverfield. Its appearance was designed for the film in question, and any talk of its continued "career" is not set in stone. After regulation, this article would be a mere stub due to the lack of any real-world context, and any useful content would fit in the film article, which discusses all aspects of the film, including the creature itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; any info about the monster can be placed on the movie's page,--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ article. Everything in it is in the movie article. If there will be more movies, or canonized material, then bring the guy back, but like Erik said, it's not very notable at this time. Wikipedia will not end tomorrow. QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article has improved greatly since the beginning of AFD and should be kept in the Cloverfield article. Not notable enough to retain it's own article, however. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant component of the viral advertising campaign for the movie centered on the mystery of the monster and its appearance. Arguably, the monster page is more significant than the original entry. Certainly, it is notable as a significant point of pop-culture, anticipation and resolution, independently from the movie. I would suggest the article include some of the pre-movie speculations as to the monster's nature (with appropriate citations) to flesh it out and give it a broader scope. Regardless, the article should remain.--Eric Burns (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign was focused on the film, which happens to include the creature. The campaign was not solely creature-focused at all. There were fake MySpace profiles of characters from the film, so this goes to show that this does not mean the creature gets separate notability. You are wrong to say that the creature can be recognized independently from the film; it is because of the film and its marketing that this creature is known. There is no independent establishment of its notability. Speculation of the creature pre-release is entwined with the nature of the film itself, as you can read at Cloverfield#Pre-release plot speculation. There is no distinction that can be made here, and the creature is not notable outside of the film to warrant a separate article. All information about this creature can be covered in the film article, which is the primary host of this entity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about any of the countless other giant monsters that only appeared in one film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.216.219 (talk • contribs) 15:50, January 21, 2008
That would be an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and is not good rationale. QuasiAbstract (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOR, nothing salvable to merge. Secret ^account 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no reason for this article to exist. The creature is discussed at the main Cloverfield page in all its real-world glory. If anything needs adding to what exists there, the article is still short enough that it can be. Only when that article becomes too big or the creature becomes notable in of itself will a separate article be required. Fans need to start to understand that individual articles do not best serve the interests of these properties. It's as though if something doesn't have its own article, it's not "important", but Wikipedia isn't a pissing contest. It's far better for the information on the creature to be within a larger article in order to give it some context and actually help readers to understand the thing better. After all, that's what we're supposed to be doing here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, real-world context is insufficient to support a separate article at this time. Powers ^T 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm very sure this monster will reappear in comics, novels and maybe sequel films, but remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. The article can be recreated if the monster becomes famous beyond that viral advertising experiment. Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with all the other guys who want to keep this article. It maybe just a explanation but it is better than just deleating like retards without explaining anything about the monster. Hell, I didn't see the movie and the monster and this article is useful for me and I bet a lot of people too because it explains what the creature looks like and the other creatures too. So don't deleate because of a stupid idea because it doesn't contain any citations, thats a couple of bull. It can still be useful if you don't deleate it. Johnny542 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the article, make sure you say so and bold the word. In addition, please discuss the merits of this article and refrain from calling opposing editors "retards". The film article Cloverfield has sufficient content about all aspects of the film, including the creature. In the present article, there are solely interpretations by editors who make scientific assertions about a fictional creature. This film's creature is discussed and cited on the film article, as the creature is known because of this film and its marketing, not outside of it at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I got a little carried away but I do still want the Cloverfield creature article still there. Johnny542 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is possible to create an article on this creature from reliable sources indicating how the creature seen in the movie was created and its impact on popular culture. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cloverfield; it's a far more organized and productive way to convey the known information on the creature. --216.16.236.2 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that is, most information of note is already contained within the article, and a separate section containing a simple description of the creature would be unnecessary. Wikipedia's focus is primarily concerned with presenting encyclopedic, real-world information. Steve ^{T • C} 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The monster is only seen in one movie; true. But the monster is the centerpiece of the movie; it needs to have a unified description; especially with a complex situation such as the smaller creatures and it's rather unique appearance and abilities. Trying to merge the monster in with the movie article is messy, and makes the whole thing longer than it needs to be without the clarity of distinct articles. K!netic (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, if the Cloverfield article was too big. It isn't, and doesn't even come close. I might agree, if the article was sufficiently full of real-world context. It isn't, and doesn't even come close. Most information of note about the creature is already within the main article; if there's something missing, please feel free to add it. A simple description doesn't cut it; if you really want that depth of speculation about the creature, there are plenty of places where one can go for that. Steve ^{T • C} 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Bstone (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that this is not a vote. Your presenting an argument consisting solely of "notable" requires explanation if it is to be considered by the closing admin. Otherwise, it will be disregarded. Steve ^{T • C} 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the lacking of sources is notable, the release is quite recent and is still receiving promotion. New information could, in theory, happen any day now. It also covers something that is not talked significantly about in the main article and is a large subject of a major film release. Many will come looking, and some will improve the article. That's how this is supposed to work, right?Sokmonkey792 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Sokmonkey792 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You ought to take a look at Cloverfield, which already houses information about the creature and other elements of the film. This article was spun off unnecessarily because it cannot be assumed that the Cloverfield creature is going to be notable enough outside of its singular appearance on the level of Godzilla or King Kong. The creature is known because of the film, and there is nothing that can be added here that would be verifiable. It's all been interpretation and original research. The film article is a better place to read about the creature, as it is the central hub of all this information. The creature is not evidenced at this point to be recognized apart from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should not assume that new information could happen any day now. QuasiAbstract (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sorry, but the focus of this movie won't be the creature, it'll be the Blair Witch/Godzilla-ness of it. Cool monster, I will admit, but nothing that two sentences couldn't sum up. Naturally, if it had sources it'd be fine, but it doesn't, and I doubt it will. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. Happy to have been proven wrong. It's a much better article than it was. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The movie explains nothing that is concrete about the monster. If a creature isn't in multiple forms of media, it really doesn't deserve an article. The comparable creature, Godzilla, is in so many movies and video games and referenced in so much pop culture that it deserves an article. But, the unnamed monster in Cloverfield does not. Golden Fox (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The monster has been the subject of secondary sources (I know because I've read some). They're not used here, but that's due to poor article quality and not lack of notability. The article was recently created and still needs to be improved, so deletion is entirely too early to consider at this point. Give people a chance to add references and assert notability! Buspar (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why can't such additions you have in mind be added to the main Cloverfield article? There's no reason for a separate article; indeed, the interests of the reader will be better served by having the information there, where it can be given proper context. Steve ^{T • C} 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where a particular character of a fictional universe receives coverage from multiple secondary sources, it is normal to split it off into its own article. The other article is primarily about the movie, including its synopsis, production, and reviews, not facts specifically about the monster from the production notes, interviews, etc. For example, the monster will be in the manga series; background material from that manga should not go in the movie article, but can go in a separate monster article. The key is that a split off like this has to be supported by secondary sources, which do exist, even though they haven't been added yet. Buspar (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why the the main Cloverfield article can't contain "facts specifically about the monster from the production notes, interviews, etc." Indeed, it already does to a certain extent. Notability is not inherited; the secondary source coverage of the Cloverfield creature is entirely due to its appearance in the film. More importantly, the interests of the reader will surely be better served by having all the information he or she is after in one place. Only when the main article gets too large should we consider spinning certain sections off. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buspar, if you know of such sources, please provide whatever information you have about them. So far, all I've heard of is this proposed manga, which is unsufficient due to WP:CRYSTAL. If I could be shown reliable independent resources that establish the creature outside of the film, then I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the manga as an example of the sort of information that wouldn't go in the movie article while still going in the creature article. I'm currently trying to find the sources I mentioned, though I think they were offline, which is going to make it a little harder. That's why submitting an AfD for an article so soon after its creation is a bad idea - this article could well be deleted before the sources can even be found! Buspar (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The manga is featured within the movie article, so it would make sense to include the creature's manga information within the movie article as well. At least until it becomes more notable. QuasiAbstract (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that secondary sources discussing the creature will not cut the mustard alone. What is required are reliable secondary sources which discuss and analyse the creature independently of the film. Even then, the interests of the reader may better be served by including that information in the main Cloverfield article, until such time as it becomes too large. Steve ^{T • C} 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You "think" they were offline? please give more detail (any detail) so we can help (oh, and at about that point, such discussion should probably move back to the talk page, since it's about improving the article, not discussion of deletion). In the case of WP:FICT articles, these independent reliable resources should be in place on the very first edit. Otherwise, notability is not established outside the main entity, and unless it has been created for reasons of WP:SIZE (which is not the case here), then the article need not exist. If such resources are later uncovered (or created), the article can be recreated, and probably in a better state than this mass of Original Research, WP:PLOT, and biological suppositions. -Verdatum (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Due to the nature of the movie little was revealed about the creature in sources not constituting original research. What's not original research can fit into the context of the main Cloverfield article. With future movies probable due to the high-grossing nature and plot style of this film, I'm open to a page on the monster being recreated some time in the future, but for now I say delete. DJBullfish (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone can add reliable secondary source support before the close of the Afd, that would contribute immensely in a positive light to the article, probably justifying it's continued inclusion. DJBullfish (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could include this at the film article Cloverfield. The article is well-sourced and serves as an appropriate host for all Cloverfield-related elements, including the Cloverfield creature itself. Just look at Cloverfield#Creature design. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of Erik's responses to the keep votes... I hope people are reading them. This is not a dicussion of notability, the monster passes that. The natural process should be to start including a monster section in the Cloverfield page, ONLY after citable sources arise. We aren't even at that point. If the amount of citable info regarding the monster increases to a large point, then maybe it will need to be expanded and given it's own article. Like I said, we aren't even close to this. Gwynand (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a paragraph focused on the design of the creature at the Production section of Cloverfield, so I've subsectioned that section to have that paragraph fall under Creature design for the sake of clarity. In addition, since Hasbro is taking advantage of the box office performance of the film with its new monster toy, I've incorporated that information in the Merchandise subsection under Marketing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We simply don't have enough factual basis to give this thing an entire article yet. Keep it as a section of the movie page for now, then, as more clear background becomes available, we can put something together. Dhenson314 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhenson314 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anything in this article at this point is nothing more than orginal research. Tabor (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first chapter of the manga has already been released, so this creature stars in two separate media, meaning his background info shouldn't all go into the film article. Also, I notice that secondary sources are already starting to be added, with some of the above users pledging more. This is a good basis for keep. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first chapter was covered by Comic Book Resources, but it reveals nothing new about the creature. CBR even asks, "How this exactly connects to the Cloverfield movie is unclear. Is this a prequel? A continuation of the film? Some other side-story that fleshes out the Tagruato story? Those questions remain unanswered at the moment." The manga could be just as relevant to the creature and the film as the viral tie-ins like Slusho! were, which was very minimal. Nothing is determinable at this point aside from attempts at crystal balling, and in addition, mention of the manga and the toy figure already rest comfortably at Cloverfield. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really any speculation there on the relationship of the movie and manga: the manga is a prequel. Kadokawa advertised it as such (the translation you cited only dealt with the comic, not the associated ads).[103] [104] 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While important and notable, as well as the forthcoming manga promising to delve into the backstory, I think this should stick around. But if this manga is not really answering anything, I say we cut this. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:OR. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, crap, etc. If there are secondary sources, they should be used to establish notability first and foremost. Given that the creature itself is a derivative fictional element which wields no cultural influence, I doubt any case for establishing notability could be made now. Specifically, cruft and viral advertisements are not notable by virtue of fan interest alone (we defer to WP:RS). Maybe in a few years, after more movies, a developed media franchise, or significant published commentary there will be a solid basis for an article on the subject. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All information in the article is simply extrapolated from either the film or marketing of the film. (Crystal Ball applies to that). And what's left appears to simply be a physical description of the creature, which can be fit into the main article easily. There's nowhere near enough outside information to justify this article. Ourai ^тʃ_с 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep as per UltraExactZZ (WP:HEY). Significant improvements have been made, with quite a few externals. Ourai ^тʃ_с 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, at least until the mangas come out. I do find it funny though that everyone here is so doubtful about the future popularity of the monster; it will become America's Godzilla, wait and see. Ours18 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is doubtful of the possibility of future popularity, but there it is again...future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not include information on the basis that that something will become popular. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the stuff can be found in the plot of Cloverfield and the stuff that isn't is O.R. -ScotchMB (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the creature is simply an entity from the film which does not warrant its own page, but which deserves mention in the film's Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssaunders (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I wouldn't have thought there would be enough before reading the article, but it certainly seems like there's plenty now to justify the articles current existence, and i'm sure there will be more in the future.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these details can be centralized at the film article Cloverfield. It cannot be assumed that the monster will have a "career" after this film. There's no need to be redundant in an article about one character from one film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, even without appearing elsewhere, I think that the information in this article, at the time i made the original comment, warranted its own seperate article, and that adding it to the movie's article would have made that article unweildy. Since then, the article has been greatly expanded. There is certainly plenty of real world information out there, as shown by the numerous varied citations, to justify having an article for the monster seperate from the movie.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Original research about a monster from a stand-alone movie. • Supāsaru 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to point out that this article is also written completely in-universe, which is discouraged in Wikipedia. • Supāsaru 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge: The article has improved greatly in the past few days, but I believe the information would fit better in the Cloverfield article. Whatever useful information should be moved there. • Supāsaru 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy to find sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of which is already covered on the film article. Why can the creature not be detailed there? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge move it and clean it up into the page about the movie. There should only be pages created for these characters when there's a long running series available and on hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge until the monster has become notable enough (that may happen with a successful sequel), it does not warrant its own page, however, the monster is notable within the context of the movie itself and as such information on it should be preserved. Overmage (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason the creature needs his own article. Ridernyc (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article Cloverfield Monster, which contains even more original research than this present article undergoing deletion, is the same topic. So depending on the outcome of the AFD, this article should be addressed -- deleted, hist-merged, or whatever else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now I already redirect Cloverfield Monster to Cloverfield. Redirect this the same; better to have one killer, "monster" article than a bunch of small crappy ones. Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the film. There's not much of an article right now. 76.65.248.50 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I also suggest that, if this survives, it should be renamed Monster (Cloverfield) or Clover (monster), as the first is a more appropriate, neutral name, while the second is the one the creators, including Abrams, use to describe it. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This whole article is original research, hearsay, and fanboy speculation. "" Get rid of it before it gets any worse. "This article been added to Fictional characters with mental illness. I'd like to point out that separation anxiety is, to quote Psychology Today's Diagnosis Dictionary, "a normal stage in an infant's development", which is not quite the same thing as separation anxiety disorder, a bona fide mental/behavioural problem. --Diagonal P. (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)" Are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springtimeofhisvoodoo (talk • contribs)
Merge I think that for now we should merge, but with a merge we should make the movie page a half and half thing. Or we could create a characters of cloverfield page and the monster can be on that. It can include Beth and Rob etc.--Baitt (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's a good article in its own right, but doesn't need a whole page. Can be merged to a section of the main Cloverfield article. -- Silva Storm —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article in its present form seems to be a rehash of the main Cloverfield article. The main Cloverfield article deserves a section dedicated to the mysterious monster. That's where we merge. --Tocino 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge Q ^{T C} 10:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Only relevant information from this article should be taken and merged with Cloverfield. Information such as Concept, Creation, Design and Reception. The rest is petiless trash Taipan198 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of useful info on this creature now so deleating it would be pointless. JUst either keep it or try to merge it with the Cloverfield article. Johnny542 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a keep or merge recommendation, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a Keep. Johnny542 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, plenty of info to support an independent article. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Everyone I know who saw this movie is looking for information about the creature, mostly its origen. This artical deserves its own entry because while there are no cloverfield 2 sequals garunteed, there is enough debate and mystery around the creature that people very much want to know where it came from and where it went. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.244.82 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -Supergodzilla^20|90 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, this is not a vote, and explanations are needed for the admin to make a decision. Otherwise, un-clarified comments will be disregarded. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this page only because I wanted more information on the creature. I think it exists outside of the movie, seeing as how there were things in all sorts of media forms about the creature, and there will be a toy of the creature. I've seen pages about Gandalf and other characters. Why not the main star that obviously caused quite a buzz? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just read the article, and if all the information in the current version is true, it is a great way to get an idea of the creature, espcially if one hasn't seen the movie yet, like myself. I am debating with myself though, if I might soon change my opinion to a merge with the movie's article, because I belive such a case like this would require a description of the creature with the movie it's in, but I worry about if the article would then be too long, and over-emphasize the creature, rather than emphasizing the movie like it's supposed to. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character of a notable movie. The content is encyclopedic, and it has a multitude of sources. Certainly an article like this belongs in Wikipedia. --Dlugar (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough information about the creature. Nothing here that isn't said on the main Cloverfield page. Maybe after the Manga and the inevitable sequel there will be a bit more information to warrent it's own page. -Gwandoya (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now appears to be well sourced. Creature is also the main antagonist of a notable movie. --Cyrus Andiron 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyrus Andiron. As the main bad guy of a clearly notable movie, it's notable. Issues of sourcing have since been addressed, so there is no rational for deleting this. Xihr (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on some of the reasoning above, no article should ever be created unless it's already not needed. Give the article a chance, for crying out loud. I'm also suspicious of those who feel they must comment on every "keep" vote to reiterate their argument(s) against it. Plus I agree with all of the other keep votes; they said it far better than I. Joe Sewell (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those who keep commenting on other's recommendations, are doing so because this is not a vote and as such, some keep giving the same reasons to keep the article, reasons that have refuted. Saying that the article is notable does not make it so. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I assume you're referring to me. FYI, I implemented the cleaned-up version of the article using a lot of redundant content from the film article, see Talk:Cloverfield (creature)#Revision. And responding is essential in AFD because this is not a vote, but a discussion. In responding, one can refute quite a few of the other's keep/delete recommendations if there is a basis for it. Most of the arguments are the same points presented in different form, so there are the same responses presented in different form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article fits all the criterion for WP:FICT and the revision of that guideline. It also seems with the manga and inevitable movie sequel(s), information will only make this article more notable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "It seems" means it's not evidenced yet. We can't crystal ball that the article will become more notable. With that being the case, since the creature is covered from its appearance in the film, why can details not go on the film article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Even though not much is known about the creature right now, it still deserves its own article, or at least this information should be merged into the article for the movie. Gamer am I (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, Definitely original research, not enough information for a whole article, even if we did have all the facts. It's not like the central character in a series or such, it's one character in one movie. Maybe after a sequel or two. There is so little information on this creature that it can easily fit in the movie's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and that's a heck of an improvement since the AfD template was added. I definitely understand the nom's original concerns, but the article has improved a great deal and seems to be going in a much better direction. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because the monster does not exist outside of the movie at this time. 68.190.18.22 (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The information about the creature and the logic behind its design is clearly notable enough. Cloverfield, and in particular the creature, is one of the talking points of the horror/scifi genre season. The only question in my mind is whether or not to merge. I vote "keep" (i.e. not merge) because the volume of material (not all of it is in the article yet) would make the main article too large and disjointed if merged. Annamonckton (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why can the information about its design not go to Cloverfield#Creature design? I put together the "Critical analysis" section talking about the creature, and believe me, the creature was not the highlight of many reviews. A lot of reviewers only mention the creature in passing and focused on the characters and the camera style used and the pacing of the film. It's absurd to imply that the creature has a "future", since we have no real indication of its presence in the manga and no certainty about sequels. This is one entity from one film, and we don't go around creating independent articles on these entities because the film is its entire background. In addition, the article is only 43 KB in size, and considering that much of the content is redundant (with the exception of creature-specific comments that I found from reviewers), it would not be large as you say. It would not be disjointed, either -- it's the creature from the film, so how would there not be a place for it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with the movie article. Not seeing anything here that isn't there already, and though I'd like to think this creature might be in a franchise, we can't make that guess. Not seeing the creature as a pop culture icon anyway, only in the movie itself. 70.178.9.23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my first impulse was to !vote delete, but looking at the article, it's a well-cited piece that does not simply focus on plot elements and asserts the notability of the character outside of the movie it appears in. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as rewritten (WP:HEY). Even Hasbro understands the importance, not to mention marketability, of this central character. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite; substantially improved from when the AfD was created. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks much better than before.- Just Phil 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, looks a good article now. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, great article, the creature needs some extra explaining. _BAMBINN ^!! 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.67.194 (talk) [reply]
Keep as a well-sourced encyclopedic entry about a notable fictional character. Article is nothing like it was when it was first nominated. It just needed some time to be improved, but the gun was jumped on the issue. --Czj (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name "Cloverfield" refers to the movie, the unique marketing efforts, and the monster itself. The monster requires its own well-sourced article and I can only see this entry improving. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure with in time this article can be made better if this many people say they want to keep it. Supergodzilla^20|90 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the monster is a notable part of the movie, to draw an analogue, there are seperate articles for godzilla the movie and godzilla the creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingbingma (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the monster is distinct from the movie. 209.19.12.41 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of independent sources from interviews by those involved in the production. -- Vary | Talk 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, normally I would say Merge but this is too long to merge so I say keep it. After all this creature was in a big hit movie.--Cra sh U nderride 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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