Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 1#Time loop logic

< September 30 October 2 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete - non-notable. --Haemo 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Arora

[edit]
Pankaj Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is self-promotion. It's cleverly done, and it cites some impressive sources, but it remains self-promotion. This article abuses its sources, of which many do not mention this person by name, to make him appear notable. This article does not report on what third party sources have said about him. It uses those sources to in such a way to make Arora appear impressive. Rather than talk about what VH1 said about him, it says, essentially, "he's so important that he has been covered in VH1." It has so many problems, and my suspicion is that once those problems are worked through, we will be left with a person who has not yet done anything of such significance that he should have a WP article. Also, I think something like one or no mainspace articles link to this one, and the article has basically no editing activity. Whoever was interested in making this page wanted to write up something that made him look like a million bucks, but in the years since, nobody else has seemed to care. One would think that some other articles would link to this person if he was notable, or that other editors would have changes to make if they did. Croctotheface 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That is correct. I conceded my request to have the page not deleted, thus the AfD is not needed and I reverted the page back to the original deletion notice so it can be deleted. I figured this made more sense so I reverted it back again, let me know/change if you disagree.
Normally a request by the author is enough for a page to be deleted. However, several other editors have been editing the article, and the Prod has been contested so it must now run the course of this AfD. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, hasn't done much except be 18 when he did stuff instead of 25. But he meets the letter of WP:BIO with this and this and shows up in a few other articles (more as passing mentions). The article is horrendously overwritten PR and needs to have a snappy {{tone}} cleanup. (Resumes can say "so and so was written up in Kiplinger's", but encyclopedia articles should not.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not impressed with those sources. My suspicion, as I said, is that once the article is cleaned up, it will have nothing to say. In my mind, being the subject of a couple of fluff pieces does not notability make. I think a good analogy would be an article on a high school athlete. Lots of local papers, which would universally be considered reliable sources, do profiles on high school athletes. I don't think that a couple of those articles would establish notability if the person's actual accomplishments are not in themselves notable. Croctotheface 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to weak delete, as I realized that since he has worked for a side project of Entrepreneur.com, the article on him there is not an independent source. Notability will arrive in due time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filligar

[edit]
Filligar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A not-notable band. Only claim of notability is the venues they've played, which is not sufficient for WP:BAND. Only indicated media coverage is one article in the student newspaper The Dartmouth.

As a side note, most of this article is original research/unverifiable/self-published due to the dearth of citations. Dylan 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just released 6th album in 6 years; also received flattering press from [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Also selected as the 2007 Madison, WI Youth Ensemble of the Year. The band is "up and coming," expected to do reasonably well on college radio in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.129.174 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as basically a dicdef-only article--JForget 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-philanthropy

[edit]
Techno-philanthropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Does not appear to be a well used term or to cover concepts not already easily covered using conventional language. SiobhanHansa 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. A demonstrated source trumps a claim of unverifiability. Notability has not been discussed. GRBerry 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Court

[edit]
The Royal Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources show existence of members, but not of "The Royal Court". Grouping of these people together is unverifiable.Kww 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVA Solar

[edit]
AVA Solar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not quite spam, but certainly is using a crystal ball Kww 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. The ones who wanted the article kept provided sources, and winning the Murrow award could be sufficient for WP:N Wizardman 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Alhart

[edit]
Don Alhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, about a minor market (Rochester) news anchor with no claim or assertion to notability. Rackabello 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED; being a news anchor for a TV station doesn't automatically make them notable. There are many major market (i.e. NYC, LA, Philly, DC) anchors who don't have articles. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WHAM-TV since there is much that assert its notability. Here in Ottawa, he used to have the Rochester channels before both Rogers and Videotron had switched to the Detroit market and I believe he was not the evening news anchor before the change although it seem to have changed since then, but still not notable enough.--JForget 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article You say: "There are many major market (i.e. NYC, LA, Philly, DC) anchors who don't have articles." But your argument is flawed. Perhaps the others did at one point, but they got deleted. Because it is not likely that all news anchor pages won't be added at once, following your logic one can assume there will never be a page for ANY anchor.

I was looking for information on Don Alhart and when I found that his page was blank, I thought I would create it and others would add more information later on. Also, doesn't the fact that the 200,000 people of Rochester could easily recognize him on the street cause him to be noteworthy? --Corgana 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to 2007 Michigan budget crisis. Fram 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Michigan State Government Shutdown

[edit]
2007 Michigan State Government Shutdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was created before the true effect of shutdown could be known, only 16 minutes after it technically began. Wikipedia does not report the news. Since the whole event lasted only 4 hours and does not appear as if it will have much long term impact (besides higher income tax and an expansion of the sales tax, which may only be tempoary), the paragraph (which is more detailed and referenced) in Michigan#1900s to the present should be adequate as this is not likely to become more than a stub. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The subsequent expansion of the article was unsourced, thus doesn't affect the debate. GRBerry 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thein Onn Ming

[edit]
Thein Onn Ming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article that isn't suitable for WP:CSD because it asserts notability. I'm not a photographer and I don't live in the UK, so I don't know if he's well known there or not. The three 'features' cited in the 'awards and honors' section are blogs and the NikonCafe link is a forum, but completing degrees at age 16 is an accomplishment. Is he notable or not? I say no, and it should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Das Weiße Band

[edit]
Das Weiße Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails future film notability guidelines, external link is broken (and thus can't be verified), and consists mainly of speculation - including news that the intended lead has died, which increases the odds of a stalled production. But to be brief, the notability guidelines are clear that articles shouldn't be created without production confirmed to have started. Any useful and verifiable info can be merged into the Michael Haneke article. Girolamo Savonarola 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The external link had a typo, fixed now. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahter Sönmez

[edit]
Ahter Sönmez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is, to a very high degree of probability, an autobiography. The creator is a user called Uplifting, and the subject is stated to be a "significant pioneer" of uplifting trance - to which article, of course, the user added a link to his own article. It has had no significant edits from anyone other than this single purpose account. The tone of the article is poor, several sentences are almost worthy of Private Eye's Pseuds Corner. The sources are: the subject, the subject's agent, and the subject's workshops. Cruftbane 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Per CSD request. Tawker 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson

[edit]
Ronald A. Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy by another user, but that was denied. From what I gather from the article, the author seems to think that working on a couple presidential campaigns is notable enough. I don't think it is. I do not believe this page meets WP:N. Rjd0060 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Camera Action! 2007 series criticisms

[edit]
Police Camera Action! 2007 series criticisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so here we go... I can't imagine a purer piece of original research than this, and I can see no possible way a neutral version of this article could be created — even in the unlikely event sources could be found, it would simply change it from a piece of original research to an indiscriminate collection of reviews. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV; if there's no sources it is likely one's own opinion, so it counts for both. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as unencyclopedic as it gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfiona99 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't like the ITV News at Ten Thirty. Should I through together an article about that? Regan123 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashup

[edit]
Dashup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism for a software API. The few external refs I could find are straight back to the product. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedied. Tawker 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeedThese

[edit]
NeedThese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure whether this is in violation of WP:CORP. May well be worthy of a speedy. RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. I've added the template now. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake no Kiyomaro

[edit]
Wake no Kiyomaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't provide context. Looks like the subject is also non-notable Phoenix 15 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an AFD nom can vastly improve an article. The article now says exactly who Wake no Kiyomaro was and why he was notable, unlike before, where there were no references and no context was established--Phoenix 15 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that means Keep--Phoenix 15 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Designs

[edit]
Squared Designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, reads like an advert. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Does assert some notability, but without specific cites for those NYT/etc articles, no way to verify that they actually support the claims of notability. DMacks 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying it myself, I get zero hits at NYT's archive search or at Newsweek's archive search. DMacks 21:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepIt probably would have been best to contact the editors who edit this article for some sources. The article wasn't even tagged with a needs more sources template before this Afd. Surely it can't be that hard to find sources of the NYT etc articles. I'll try to find some sources and if I can't find them then I will change my vote to delete. AngelOfSadness talk 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay. I'll try to remember next time I AFD an article as I'm new to this. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I slightly new to this aswell but the deletion policy says to consider other alternatives to deleting before marking the article for CSD, PROD or Afd. One of them is the cleanup tags like the "needs more sources" one I mentioned earlier. AngelOfSadness talk 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Added {{refimprove}}. Looks like I jumped the gun. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Delete per AngelOfSadness, below. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too late I think…already several comments support deletion, so at best you could (as you seem to have already done?) change your mind and add a comment about why you now support keeping. DMacks 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal at work

[edit]
Criminal at work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

generic-sounding expression, self-declaredly somewhat amorphic meaning. Only cited source for its use doesn't use it as article defines the term. Doesn't really fit any speedy catagory well, so here we are. DMacks 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun timeline

[edit]
Shadowrun timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This history of the future is litterally unfinished, but also non-notable and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on original research.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not fiction"? I'd better re-write my history essay. :-) Axl 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, you misunderstand me. When I said that the information in the article was culled from the official timeline, I meant it literally. FASA produced and published actual timelines of key events in the Shadowrun canon. In fact, until I found and started editing the page, it was a verbatium copy of one of them. I could understand criticising the article for WP:COPYVIO, but OR isn't even on the map here. It cannot possibly be OR, because until about a year ago, it was a word for word copy of the primary source. EvilCouch 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You're still misunderstanding WP:OR, and I think you're confusing the text in the example in WP:SYN with the actual policy. Synthesis is taking sources and making a conclusion from them that is not made by any of the sources, while plagiarism is using material without crediting its source. Pinball22 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plagiarism is the exact opposite of original research. You need to come to a complete halt with AFDs until you actually understand the policies. At any rate, as I already stated, there has been about a year's worth of work done on the article since it was a plagiarised copy of official material. EvilCouch 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. JoshuaZ 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy in science fiction

[edit]
Pregnancy in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Many problems. For an article that was created in 2003 (spinoff from Pregnancy), it is in a really poor shape. It's basically an unsourced list that is close to failing WP:NOT#IINFO. The inclusion criterion isn't really outlined, and quite a few entries in the list don't even deal with pregnancy but infertility. With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written, like Sex in science fiction (pretty good for all its failings), Nudity in science fiction and Gender in science fiction (both acceptable for a start). Maybe this AfD will create some substance for the article that it failed to include in the past four years. Because without it, deletion can't be much worse. (To clarify: I am not attempting to misuse AfD for cleanup work, but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - Dogs in science fiction, Food in science fiction, Music in science fiction,...) – sgeureka t•c 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sex in science fiction does attempt it, but it is one of the best examples I've ever seen of OR. Seems like it would be considerably less so if it were formatted like this article. There are essentially no unsourced assertions of controversial statements in this article, just one-line summaries of the relevant aspects of their plot. (2) The purview of a list is defined by its lead, and its lead currently refers to both of the very much interrelated topics. That said, the name you suggest would be more apt. (3) Might be - I generally just monitor the Actors, Education, and Sci Fi sorting lists, so I'm a little out of date on the topic as relatively few lists come up for discussion there. In terms of it becoming a fully fleshed out article, the very fact that it begins with "this list" should make it clear enough that its staying a list is not a particularly negative thing. Might warrant a move to a List-type name. MrZaiustalk 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works - As long as the history's accessible, I'd be happy to help with the conversion, if the closing admin doesn't have a way to automate things. MrZaiustalk 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do. categories simply provide a list of articles with no other useful information as to why they are related and thus will make wikipedia worse, not better. This is a list that needs editing to become a real article. Just because many folks here don't envision that doesn't mean there is no hope. Article should be improved with regular editing.Benjiboi 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it can be a fully fleshed out article, provide sources - We wouldn't want it to become another OR-laden, crufty article like Sex in science fiction. Again, there are at least a dozen examples of similar categories, so that really does seem like the most appropriate action to take in the meantime. There's almost no data that would be lost by the switch. MrZaiustalk 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not my job to provide sources or even prove they exist and I'm no expert on the subject so i wouldn't even know where to find them or who writes on the subjects. I stated I object to this article being eliminated in favor of adding layers of categories to clump articles that have something to do with the subject together. I believe the article should be improved through regular editing. There is interest and material on the subject - now we need someone who has some knowledge in the area to start the process of turning the current article into a decent one that makes sense and, of course, it should adhere to wp standards. Benjiboi 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we're judging this article as an article, rather than a list, then we plainly require sources to demonstrate the notability of the topic and prevent it from turning into something like Sex in science fiction, which seems to be wholly and entirely original research. MrZaiustalk 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually we're not judging the article as it is, we're rendering judgment on what it can become. Can the article become a good article or is it beyond all hope? Of course it shouldn't be wholly and entirely original research but we can look at those less reliable sources to see if they, in fact, reference sources we can use.Benjiboi 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it though - noone's brought any references to bear, and I wasn't able to find any when I blew a couple minutes looking before. The proposed redirect would leave the list intact, and the category will probably be populated either way. There really isn't any content in the article as it stands that wouldn't be covered, other than the redundant summaries of the plot summaries. MrZaiustalk 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really object to this as a category; it will certainly get deleted. Very few works have pregnancy as a defining element (Naomi Mitchison's Memoirs of a Spacewoman, maybe a few others), and it's just not suitable for a category. It is, in fact, suitable for an article, with appropriate examples. Although it's not there yet, it doesn't seem really helpful to delete it in the hopes that someone, someday, will start from scratch to achieve the perfect article. Better to have someone go in and do major clean-up after this AFD closes, and write an assessment in the Talk page leaving guidance for more development. --lquilter 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list cruft. Alternatively merge with Sex in science fiction. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A list article, like this, is of much less value than an article which enumerated the major variations on pregnancy (or more properly, reproduction) that have been explored in science fiction -- parthenogenesis, artificial wombs, cloning, eugenics, dystopian controls on reproduction, etc. I'm not going to comment on the value of the article as it is now, but an article which surveyed what science fiction has explored on the subject of reproduction would in my opinion be worth keeping. -- 192.250.34.161 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that it's not very good right now, but the topic (whether limited to "pregnancy" or expanded to "reproduction and fertility") is actually of significant interest. Science fiction is one of the only literary genres that actually considers pregnancy -- various types, social implications, metaphoric. Yes, it's not a good article right now; but deleting it so that someone else will start it from scratch and do it better isn't really that useful. Far better to include this discussion on the Talk page, let someone synthesize the useful points, and give editors something to start with. --lquilter 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the idea of this list, as it shows the development of this theme in SF writing. However, without secondary sources, it perhaps qualifies as OR, as it is essentially an essay based on a thematic list. "It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources[15]." --Gavin Collins 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is notable. Wow, is this badly sourced. :-( I would clsoe and keep but for a my potential COI. No time to fix it, monkey on my back. Bearian 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Asian Man

[edit]
Angry Asian Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! my talk 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! my talk 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry asian man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, G11. Sandstein 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj raff

[edit]
Dj raff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claims of notability, but no reliable sources can be found. I assume "has appeared with" means "played music by". Lots of MySpace hits, but I went through several Google pages without finding anything that could classify as a reliable source. Corvus cornix 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House Of Prayer

[edit]
The House Of Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded as WP:CRYSTAL, prod was removed, so I'm bringing it here. In addition to the prodder's concern, this is so hoax-y it's almost funny (Michael Jackson as a guest star? Riiiiiiiiight). UsaSatsui 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Kiu

[edit]
Wang_Kiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

one of thousands, who learned under Yip Man. Not important


Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.230.86 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No important informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.231.50 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Ware

[edit]
Jonathon Ware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet again another non-notable Youtube "celebrity". Yes, he's been interviewed on television. Yes, the Washington Post has talked about him. But even the post called his interview his "17 seconds of fame". Everybody who gets interviewed on TV does not a Wikipedia article make. Find something else that he's noted for, find reliable sources that you can write a biography on, or else he's not notable. Corvus cornix 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ong

[edit]
Brian Ong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable. No references in article. This person is only notable for his death; nothing else. Davnel03 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parted Magic

[edit]
Parted Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable software. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. J Milburn 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete G11, blatant advertising. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Aid Design

[edit]
Brand Aid Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear & Blatant Advertising for a company and non-enyclopedic / Author removed speedy delete and PROD tags SkerHawx 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I was just about to delete the large amount of copyright-violation material that was in the article which would have left a minimal amount of content, but the user has blanked the page, and it has now been marked for speedy deletion as such. If it comes back and we have to go through the whole process, speedy delete G11 - it's spammy and the company doesn't appear to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be very true with this user. I've had to place a hidden message in the article requesting to not place the hang on tag(Hang-ons are only for CSD articles) on a Afd marked article. And so far it has worked. Let's hope for the best I guess AngelOfSadness talk 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (After EC)The info has been restored by the user who created the article after they blanked the page three times. It appears that the user wants to discuss the articles deletion on the on the article's talk page. The article itself looks like advertising by a company which hasn't asserted it's significance in the article. Therefore should be deleted unless it can be greatly improved. It also appears we might have a clear COI debate on our hands see article talk page again for details AngelOfSadness talk 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam, spam, wonderful spam. The creator seems to be trying to exploit loopholes on the talkpage to keep this alive (I'll post [unsourced material] to [website affiliated with company] then cite it as a source...etc). Also appears to be a conflict of interest and the creator is hinting at the fact that PR made him create this. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (probably even speediable several ways) as non-notable (marginal assertion, no cites) spam by a spammer trying to game the system. Concur with strong COI problem, but this thing seems deletable on so many levels I'm not sure we need to worry about COI in particular. DMacks 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's too many things wrong with this article that it might be beyond help. The spam, advertising, veribility, COI and non-notable problems make it seem like a pretty good candidate for a few CSD's. Take your pick I guess AngelOfSadness talk 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement for non-notable company (no sources proving notability provided). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current version of the page (now that the copyright violations have been removed) would qualify for G11 if the AfD process had not already begun. Existence of a COI is a reason for extra scrutiny though not a reason for deletion by itself. User:Brandaid's frivolous and POINTy nominations of other articles for deletion, like Matrox, Radar Networks and Squared Designs invite a block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious, non-notable spam. - Jehochman Talk 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Tierney

[edit]
Brandon Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Radio personality fails WP:BIO. Endless Dan 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Users are welcome to merge in the future if there is talk page consensus for that (no need for AfD for merges). I believe this article does not explain its notability, nor does it cite a single source. I have tagged as such. If I was a bit more bold, I would have deleted it. Please bring this article up to standards or it WILL be deleted in the future. (also, I am not comfortable merging this text as it is because it still is unsourced/not verifiable.)-Andrew c [talk] 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time loop logic

[edit]
Time loop logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a theory which appears to have no currency outside of a single paper by Hans Moravec. Fans of Isaac Asimov will note some parallels with The Endochronic Properties Of Resublimated Thiotimoline and may be inclined to deduce that it is a hoax. Whether it is or is not, te author does not use this article title as a term in the paper. Nor does the paper appear to be peer-reviewed. So: amusing as this is, I think it violates policy by promoting a fringe theory or giving undue weight to an idea. The title has no obvious connection to the idea's proposer, so a redirect does not seem appropriate. Cruftbane 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No verifiable sources, no peer-review, might be a hoax or OR. --Chuck Sirloin 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sirloin. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- real article as far as I can see, and nothing to refute it, or do I misunderstand Assuming Good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The source I used is in the external links, and I recall being prompted to look it up and write an article about this based off of encountering the concept in a popular science magazine (likely Discover or Scientific American) so it's not isolated to just that one original source. I'll go rummaging around to see if I can find what issue it was, but that could take a bit of time. It would have been nice if you'd raised this issue in a talk page or given some other indication of your concern before lunging straight to AfD. Bryan Derksen 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'll probably be a few days before I have the opportunity to dig up my boxes of old magazines or find a suitable index, but in the meantime a little web searching has shown a mention of Moravec's work on this at Nahin, Paul J. Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction. p. 297.. I don't have the book and Google only had one page of the section this is in available, though, so I can't tell how much detail is in there. Also, Moravec's paper got published by the journal Extropy. Don't know what sort of peer review that entails. (Moravec, Hans (July 1992). "Time Travel and Computing". Extropy (9): 15–20.)
  • Keep- I've heard of it, and it seems logicall verifiable... needs some sources and to be sorted, but not deletable. Dunno about the title of the article...JJJ999 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete the sourced coverage may be non-trivial, but it isn't independent and it definitely isn't multiple. As such, the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • would still stick with my keep...JJJ999 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to keep- no consensus. Clean up.JJJ999 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. -- Jreferee t/c 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Forge

[edit]
Star Forge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Component of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. However, while the game is notable, there is no assertion of this locale's notability. This un-sourced article is just plot summary that delves into minutiae. Suggest restoring redirect to video game in which it appears. --EEMeltonIV 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentmaking

[edit]
Tentmaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Tentmaking" appears to be a neologism describing missionary christians who maintain secular employment instead of accepting donations for compensation. The concept may be very old, however I feel this article should be deleted based on the following:

  1. WP:RS - It is completely unreferenced, except for sermon-style references to bible verses and a self-support "how-to" for evangeicals (neither of which really meet with reliable source guidelines).
  2. WP:OR - As a sermon would be, it is original research.
  3. WP:NEO - Use of the word ("tentmaking") seems mostly confined within the community to which it is applicable (namely christians, especially evangelicals) and has not taken on this context from an objective perspective.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)--Bedivere 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holden Special Vehicles

[edit]
List of Holden Special Vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lists are a navigational aid. This list, however, has no links. The category Category:Holden Special Vehicles has only two members, this and the article Holden Special Vehicles. HSV makes performance variants of standard Holden vehicles. As such, there will be a (usually small) number of HSV variants made for most Holden vehicles, which will be pimped up but otherwise not distinct from the base vehicle. If any meaningful number of these cars had separate articles then a category would do the job, but as far as I can see they don't. The clincher is that the HSV article lists the variants already, with the addition of some text that describes them (which this list lacks). So: it is redundant, not navigational, and if it were navigational it would be a job better done by a category, unless descriptive text were put in, but that's in the HSV article (and so round again). Cruftbane 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, or at best a7, event with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falltoberfest

[edit]
Falltoberfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yahoo and google [16] [17] return only three sites that even mention this holiday. Doesn't seem to be notable outside of Kent State University. ARendedWinter 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Richard 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Businessmen of Kerala

[edit]
Businessmen of Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list consisting entirely of redlinks. --Finngall talk 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hell, why stop at this location? Let's list every businessman/woman and millionaire in the world! This is a completely uncontrollable and unsourced list. ARendedWinter 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City Airport People Mover

[edit]
Mexico City Airport People Mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Martial BACQUET 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial and I were editing the same article at the same time. This article appears to be a stub to me (BTW - I am not involved in this articles creation in any way!). The writer appears to be attempting to create a legitimate article. My take on it was it needs references, to show notability and a bit of polish. But otherwise, it's not a copyvio, spam, attack page or anything else. KoshVorlon
".. We are ALL Kosh..."
18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the article need to be clean-up seriously. Martial BACQUET 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Southwick

[edit]
Shawn Southwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor-singer; IMDb page only lists one- or two-episode roles. Show that she was formerly host of does not have a Wikipedia article. Only other "claim" is that she's the wife of Larry King; however, notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AaRON

[edit]
AaRON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally speedied by me but I restored it after a DRV to send it here. Band does not appear to meet WP:NMG and definitely does not have sufficient, or any, citations to back it up Stifle (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Normally a pair of interwiki links (fr. and de.) go a long way to convince me of notability. However, based on my rudimentary knowledge of French, the French article doesn't say much beyond the English one. Delete this article, and let the French speakers worry about their own wiki, since there's no unity among wikis in deletion process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current state of the article is not reason for deletion; inherent lack of notability is. A notable subject with a bad article should be cleaned up, not deleted. This is a notable subject, which should have been clear at the DRV but which was restored by the admin and nominated for AfD without any cleanup. Chubbles 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Pumpkin is the author of this article. Chubbles 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Jack Thompson (attorney). A mention there may be in order. JoshuaZ 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelante

[edit]
Pixelante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Weak establishment of a neologism, might(?) be in vio of WP:BLP. Mdbrownmsw 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jai guru de va om

[edit]
Jai guru de va om (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The individual words are partly referenced, as would be expected in Wiktionary. However, the article is original research guessing at a meaning (of which the article admits there are many) of a phrase the artists choose not to explain. A search for any sort of dicussion in reliable sources merely returns blogs and forums. Nuttah68 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional bars

[edit]
List of fictional bars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants. Vast numbers of works of fiction contain a fictional bar or at least a mention of one. A listing of every one of them is a directory of loosely associated items. Those very few fictional bars that have notability apart from the originating fiction should have their own articles and be categorized in Category:Fictional bars and inns. The presence of a bar in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the work of fiction and nothing about the work's relationship to other fictional works. "It has a bar in it" is not a theme or in the vast majority of cases a central or even an important plot element or point of commonality. Otto4711 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two paragraphs in an essay. Not even a flexible guideline, just some peoples' opinion that does not necessarily have consensus--Almost every point of that essay is subject to disagreement, see its talk page. Interesting & useful aren't alone enough, but they certainly don't hurt. 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keepI do not see this as loosely associated, were they loosely associated, i would think that we could substitute a similar term, like monkeys and find that related to that term is sufficiently similar in strength. no, in this case that they are all a bar matters. beyond that the bars on the list as a whole are more notable than the bars individually, so the article provides material to wp that in deleting it degrades wp. --Buridan 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am unclear what monkeys have to do with anything. Actually, I'm unclear what your comment means at all, as it does not appear to be in a grammatical or syntactical style with which I am familiar. Otto4711 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the argument is they are not loosely associated because the central term matters and is a strong association. the central term is bar, let that be x, were we to take any other term y, and substitute it for x, and find that the lists are the same, then x would be replacable by y, and thus would have no significant associations. yet, we cannot substitute in this case, substituting y=monkeys for x=bar yields a significant misunderstanding because that items on the list are all bars is what matters. it is not a loose association between each thing and its category, it is a function of identity, which is perhaps the strongest relation. so your argument is that they are loosely associated, my argument is that if they were, we would easily be able to test that by the method of substitution, yet, the method of substitution which would show that the central term of association would not matter fails. it fails because the term of association is in fact, a significant property and really that term is an identifying property, and because of that relationship of identity, the items on the list are all related as the set of things that are bars, and identity relationships are not what we mean by loosely associated. what one means by loosely associated is the set of things that are bars and monkeys, where for any given thing in the set it could be related to either something it is 'a bar' or something that is not 'a bar' like 'a monkey'. loose association this is not. this is a set of things that are strongly identified with each other by their very nature. so if you choose any two things on the list and ask anyone who has been shown these two things, they will say clearly and likely with a forthright tone, 'those are bars, they are similar, and they are related in kind in several clear and substantive ways which are necessary by their nature as bars' this is different from say people named 'dorothy parker' which would in fact likely only share one characteristic, their name, and unless someone is particularly cruel, they probably also would be also possess certain secondary sex traits, but we cannot discount cruelty. so the set of things in the world called dorothy parker is a very loose association, where the set of things that are bars, and fictional bars no less, is a fairly strong associaiton. nominative relations are weak, identity relations are strong. --Buridan 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But monkeys have nothing to do with bars. It's easy to prove your argument saying that "bars" isn't replaceable by "monkeys", it's just like saying, I dunno, that fairies exist because they're more rational than flying TV screens with legs that shoot bananas out of a screwdriver for example (yeah I know that made no sense but it's just an example). Besides I don't exactly see how replacing "bars" with something else will make its content less loosly associated. No matter what name you give it, it's still a potentially gigantic list where all items have nothing to do with each other except that they're fictional bars. --Slarti (1992) 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I kinda thought somebody would bring that up lol. But jungle gyms have nothing to do with fictional bars except the homonym of bars as in "monkey bars" and bars as in "have a drink at a bar". --Slarti (1992) 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the logic is that loosely associated must tie things together that have little association? if this were a list of bars and monkeys and catfish and women named olivia, it would clearly be not well associated. so it is not that, but it is somewhere closer to strongly associated, now then the question follows from your post of 'does the identity fictional bar sufficiently delimit the list to be manageable?' is that yoru concern? because then your concern is really one of appropriate rules for inclusion, so the list just needs to be fictional bars that meet some standard of notability? then you have to hold that for all lists, no? and then don't all lists get turned into categories? so we can either have a list that is inclusive and notable as the expanded collection which would include items not having an article or mention in wikipedia, or we just have categories? because if the former is the case, we can have lists that are more expansive than categories, then this list just needs cleanup doesn't it? why isn't being a 'fictional bar' suffiently delimiting in your mind? to me it seems a solid way to describe an association of items that are in fact 'fictional bars'. --Buridan 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right... I didn't get most of that, but from the part I was able to understand, I'm guessing you're saying that loosly associated things are things of varied naming. In that case, I say that still "Fictional Bars" is a loose topic because it can include loads of fictional bars and types of fictional restaurants that have absolutely nothing to do with each other except they're fictional bars. Instead, one could place the bar in an article about the fiction work it belongs to, or something of the sort. For example, The Leaky Cauldron is included in the list of bars. It is also in Diagon Alley. There's no use for the same information (actually more on the Diagon Alley article) twice. Now, where would you search for the Leaky Cauldron if it doesn't show up as an article on your search? In List of fictional bars or in Diagon Alley? --Slarti (1992) 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i'd look for bars, then that would likely link to fictional bars, where i would find it. Since i have no idea what diagon alley is, for all i know it would be another bar. in searching, you can't assume that other's share the deep knowledge of harry potter. nor do people who are unfamiliar with the topic know enough to choose which salient features to search for, so they wouldn't know necessarily in 5-10 years that 'harry potter' is a main character. --Buridan 13:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... your way of searching is definitely unique... how would you know that it would be listed in List of fictional bars or that said article even exists? And why would anybody unfamiliar with the topic of Harry Potter even know about The Leaky Cauldron? I mean, OK, worst case scenario somebody asks you to researh on The Leaky Cauldron and you know nothing about it. How would you even know it's a bar? Now, if they tell you it's a bar, I'm guessing they'll be king enough to tell you it's in the Harry Potter series. OK, you go to that article. You click the link to the first book. You look at the second paragraph in the beginning section and there it is! You follow the link to Diagon Alley. That opposed to randomly guessing a list of fictional bars exists, taking a chance, searching for it, somehow finding it, wondering "what's all this stuff? There's stuff from lots of loosly related works here, only coinciding in that they're fictional bars!", finally scrolling down, finding it, and following it to Harry Potter, in a way greatly resembling the use of a category. And, FYI: if you search for The Leaky Cauldron you'll just get redirected to Diagon Alley, precisely and effectively as all people who know nothing of the subject should get directed. None of the hodgepodge of either of the two ways I've listed before. --Slarti (1992) 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Deletion is justified under WP:CSD#G11 as well as the discussion below. Eluchil404 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facets (previously known as GemStone-J)

[edit]
Facets (previously known as GemStone-J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable spam. At the very least needs to be renamed/merged. Rocket000 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial second-party references to Facets. Non-notable. SkerHawx 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 school shooting outbreak

[edit]
2006 school shooting outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like a neologism for a series of shootings in 2006. It's not a term used by any media or educational outlet, and this article is just redundant material from other articles. Wafulz 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Immediately after the Virginia Tech incident, I think Time magazine did an analysis of school shootings over the years, including a graph that plotted the deaths per year.--User101010 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many official studies have shown that violence in schools is stable or declining, and that after one shooting incident or bomb scare there are several copycat crimes. There's no support for a "2006 outbreak" and it isn't the way these things are normally classified (i.e. legitimate social science would look at a range of years). --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a sad coincidence that there *may* have been a few more incidents than in other years, but this article really is redundant and original research. The section about 2005 and 2007 is a very weak way of supporting the claim of the article. --User101010 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown that this does not violate WP:SYNTH. Although some of the cited sources claim 2006 as the worst year to date for such incidents, there isn't really a basis for the claim of an "outbreak" in an encyclopaedic sense. All the information is contained in the relevant articles anyway. A subcategory 2006 school shootings may be useful. TreeKittens 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete info contained in main articles is sufficient, this is WP:SYNTH and unnecessary. I like the idea of categorizing by year. --Keeper | 76 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Articles are not appropriate until after a group has generated coverage. See WP:CRYSTAL. Eluchil404 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Playwrights

[edit]
Denver Playwrights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Group started meeting less than 2 months ago. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MilkyTracker

[edit]
MilkyTracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Software application, not notable. Searching for media coverage/independent coverage, even on Google archives, turns up only two hits. Non-notable, delete. • Lawrence Cohen 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete no revisions of the article contained an assertion of notability per WP:CSD#A7 Pedro :  Chat  10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.c.infinity(rapper)

[edit]
M.c.infinity(rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Little claim of notability in article; gsearch shows at least two artists with this name, neither of which appear notable in the first several pages of non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by User:Mailer diablo. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish national party

[edit]
Irish national party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable political party, established last year. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS 14:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a nowak"

[edit]

Neologism, Non-notable. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Nothing to show how this article passes WP:MUSIC CitiCat ♫ 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowearth

[edit]
Slowearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, see WP:MUSIC --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google search seems to yield numerous results showing notability. Article needs to be rewritten though for better prose and wikification. However It doesn't seem to be a notability problem from what I'm looking at. Perhaps an assertion of notability might be helpful though Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group has released four albums so far if I am not mistaken. Moreover, a quick google search shows quite a number of hits for this band. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3000 hits isn't really much (atleast not in my opinion, and definitely not for a band) and with a tweaking of the search terms (+band) to remove any unrelated results the count is siginificantly lower - here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentleigh West Primary School

[edit]
Bentleigh West Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Asserts no notability. Former prod candidate, removed by user, saying that a lack of an agreement at WP:SCH means we should come here Twenty Years 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by User:Neutrality.--JForget 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arce

[edit]
Raymond Arce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable athlete. Non-wiki ghits don't show notability, little claim of notability in article. Contested prod Fabrictramp 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPeriodic

[edit]
GPeriodic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to demonstrate notability; non-notable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned From TV (Band)

[edit]
Banned From TV (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NOM WITHDRAWN SPEEDY KEEP Redirect to Band from TV. Thanks SkerHawx. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserts notability via all the famous members, but I could not find independent, verifaible Sources in Google News Archives or Google news. Not sure the clip from Leno suffices. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, other votes all keep. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria

[edit]
Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The party is absolutely non-notable, never contested an election as far as I am aware, and has no well-known members that I know of. —Nightstallion 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mh. Okay, fair enough, consider the AfD withdrawn as far as I'm concerned; you've got a point. —Nightstallion 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MLPÖ was one of the first maoistic parties in the western world and still exists on a small level. The party contested one election and has several well-known members (former members of KPÖ). For more information see the german article (Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Österreichs).----Sf67 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this telephone per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola C139

[edit]
Motorola C139 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Wikipedia is not a Motorola catalog. Mikeblas 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep How do you establish notability for a phone anyway? For me, as long as the article is NPOV and not Motorola propaganda, it makes sense to have it listed, as so many other models are also listed. --Martin Wisse 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I would say it's advertising as the opening paragraph is worded quite strangely, but the flaws seem to go against an advertisement. Otherwise it seems like just a general information page on a phone. Aside from the "flaws", most of this information could be found on a site for cell phones. To answer the question asked above, something like the V120c is notable, since it was a standardly offered phone for Verizon and Alltell, and was one of the highest radiation-emitting phones. The iPhone is notable because of the news hype surrounding it. That's why I only propose a weak delete - there's no real guidelines for cell phone articles. Zchris87v 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not sure, It seems to be notable enough. What exactly does a notable cellphone mean anyway? Maybe a cleanup of that whole list of motorola cellphones would help though, but that specific one doesn't seem any less notable. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google search shows up more than 2 million hits for this model. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The number of search hits is irrelevant as the vast majority are listings on websites offering them for sale. People asking how a cellphone can be notable are really offering an argument for deletion: if it's not notable, it shouldn't have an article as per WP:N, and more specifically WP:CORP. The fact that there are other articles on other non-notable phones is not an argument to keep this one, but rather to list the other ones as well. Phones can be notable, as per Zchris87v's comment above, but this one isn't, and the fact that the article doesn't look like an advertisement does nothing to change that. Thomjakobsen 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Guess it is notible enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Although it's a product of a large mobile phone company, it doesn't seem to have any unique or revolutionary design, features or sales or marketing campaign (or mentions in popular culture etc.) that gives it notability.--Alasdair 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Without a cell phone guideline, we return to the primary notability criteria - are there multiple non trivial reliable sources? In this case trivial is the key word. A million listings for sale are a million trivial sources. What we need are specific articles (not from the manufacturer!) describing the merits of this phone or its cultural impact. We have a few days to find some. Update: my logic stays my conclusion changes with the great sources now added.Obina 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cell phone with no claim of notabilty. Jbeach56 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable cell phone. Keb25 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not a big fan of cell phones, but a lot of people own them and Motorola is a familiar company, so I reckon this could/should be kept in some capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In some capacity could be a list - is that OK with your view? We are struggling with sources to show this phone needs a full article.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAny phone? Takes us into a scary place - but no worry - we are discussing this phone. Please share the multiple non trivial reliable sources and truly we will be happy to agree.Obina 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is indeed covered in reliable sources and therefore passes WP:N and WP:V. In addition to the three reviews cited in the article there is also this, which I will add to the refs. Does 4 count as multiple? Mr. Google News shows 84 more here but WP:N no longer claims that particular requirement anyway. TreeKittens 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [Edit] I have added this source as a reference in the article. TreeKittens 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is also a much more detailed review published in PC Magazine here by Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, 14 March 2007. It claimed it is the cheapest unlocked GSM handset. I have expanded the article with this. Thanks TreeKittens 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - allthough I could live with this just being a redirect to an article dealing with it. There is no other reason than me just thinking Wikipedia should have articles on every cell phone there is, as long as this articles can be properly sourced (then you will of course lose some of the tiny brands). I think it would be great to find an article here if you wanted to know about a certain cell-phone. My impression is this is the old include/exclude discussion all over again. Greswik 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Though it would be nice for this to happen, there is no real reason as the information on this page can be found on most websites offering the phone for sale. In that case, wikipedia does not need to be a mirror of another site, since its purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Zchris87v 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an argument for expansion rather than deletion - all the information in Wikipedia must be available elsewhere in order for us to comply with WP:V. If third-party sources have commented in detail on this phone (as demonstrated by the cited sources) then there is no reason to delete that information. --TreeKittens 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:V is so important, then why are so few articles adequately referenced? -- Mikeblas 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This one is referenced, but is still listed for deletion. --TreeKittens 15:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. KOS | talk 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyWIKI

[edit]
EnergyWIKI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested G11 speedy of an article that amounts to no more than blatant advertising Rackabello 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability, borderline spam. - Mike Rosoft 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EroomX

[edit]
EroomX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable company, verges on spam. Rackabello 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Dread

[edit]
Isle of Dread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This fictional island is long on plot summary, but is short on independent sources required to establish notability.--Gavin Collins 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Once again the nominator does himself no favors by apparently failing to read the entire article before making a nomination, as notability is asserted in the article. References are provided, yet I do agree that they should be used to properly source the article. However, there are appropriate tags that can be used to indicate this, and AfD should not be used as a "bludgeoning tool" in this manner to encourage clean-up of an article. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep/nom remedied*Neutral There's no sourced case for note in the article, and the sources aren't readily available, but there are three borderline WP:RS print sources listed published by a company that, at the very least, isn't said to be owned or partially owned by the publisher of D&D in its wiki article. However, all are from the same publication, and, again, they're somewhat borderline - Are the magazines licensed by TSR/Wizards/whatever really WP:RS? On that same note, is Nintendo Power? If the latter is generally accepted, then these should be, although that doesn't negate that Multiple independent sources should be found, not just multiple citations from different issues of the same source. That said, common sense would indicate that 18 minutes is an inadequate time for a cleanup to be carried out. ;) MrZaiustalk 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) PS: On the case for note - I don't believe that its influence on later works from the same publisher really cut the mustard, although the Dungeon awards does, if a second WP:RS can be found for another point in the article. Is there anything more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that the WoW place-name is based on this, or that it had any other impact on anything outside of future TRS publications?[reply]
Comment - The amount of time that cleanup takes is irrelevant as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Rray 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a matter of courtesy than not. Not a policy thing - just stating that I generally prefer to only AfD an article after they've been flagged for cleanup for some time (weeks or months) when they might otherwise be salvageable. This one likely would be. MrZaiustalk 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not all that good an example. It falls prey to the same problem, having only one sourced point that demonstrates that it has importance outside of the Simpsons, and contains less (while stronger) citations. MrZaiustalk 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just using common sense with that. A fictional organization or location rarely has influence to the outside world, but if it's part of a notable fictional universe, chances are people are going to hear about it.--Alasdair 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable gamecruft. Bacchiad 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the pack-in module for the Expert set, it was one of the first modules many D&D players were exposed to. Its place on the greatest adventures list and the fact that it's still being used as an inspiration for new material today further indicate its importance in the world of D&D. More sourcing would be good, of course, but I think it's definitely notable. Pinball22 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Craw-daddy & Pinball. As this module came with the Expert box, it has likely received more play than any other D&D module, save for B2.--Robbstrd 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps the article is flawed, but deletion is a ridiculous idea. Improve it, or wait for someone else to do so. But deletion? That makes no sense at all. Perhaps the article should make it more clear that its topic is Dungeons & Dragons Gaming Module X1: The Isle of Dread, rather than the Isle of Dread per se.KevinOKeeffe 08:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's been understood from the first Keep above. Still no strong case for note built on third party sources. MrZaiustalk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep this is another example of Gavin's self impossed Quioxtic misson to remove RPG articles from Wikipedia. The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him wholly unqualified to recomend a AfD here. The article may need some work, but it is referenced and it is notable. Web Warlock 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT is no more an argument in an AfD than it is for the nom. The article lacks adequate references and no longer makes any attempt to demonstrate note, aside from the awards given by a magazine that is officially "authorized" by the publisher of the book/topic of the article. MrZaiustalk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The mere fact that he does not even know what this is makes him perfectly suited to judge the article based on its merits in an encyclopedia. What notability does this have outside of D&D? What published, third party sources can you use to back it up? That particular argument is bunk. Its notability should be as plain as the nose on the author's face in any article here. MrZaiustalk 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weak argument. People generally reference encyclopedias because they don't know anything about a particular subject. Otherwise, why have an encyclopedia at all? If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly fine for me to nominate the article on Finnegans Wake for deletion, because I know nothing about it.--19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbstrd (talk • contribs)
Arguably, Finnegans Wake (the article, that is) deserves a {{nofootnotes}} template, but that's an argument for another day.  ;) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book could use a {{nofootnotes}} too. ;) Pinball22 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expertise is required to author a decent article, but the audience of an encyclopedia is the layman. If an article doesn't make a clear case for note and contain valid citations to back it up, it raises serious issues. I know nothing about the half-dozen Indian software engineers I've flagged for prod - They still don't meet WP:BIO, just like this article only makes a borderline case for note, based on the awards that were given by a company just one step away from the publisher. That said, changing back to neutral pending the introduction of the sources promised below. MrZaiustalk 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine. Then remove the AFD to give people the chance to get the articles referenced. I have a full time job, teach at night and still have a wife and kids. I also happen to have stacks of references that I could easily add if I had the time. Web Warlock 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the nom would be withdrawn if they were added. This isn't eligible for a close, barring snowballing, until October 6th. On a side note, everybody works. MrZaiustalk 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not have the time till after the 8th to da anything and Gavin has wasted enough of my time today already. Web Warlock 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have older game magazines that are not/were not owned by the same company producing the game. I even think I have a copy of Christianity Today that mentions this module specifically. Web Warlock 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are now 12 sources for this article. I could get more, but my Dragon Magazine index is not behaving nicely. How many more does it need? Web Warlock 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None. Dungeon and RPGNet were both iffy sources, the one being compromised by their ties to the publisher of the book in question, and the other being a reasonably well established blog - either would have done given one strong source. Space Gamer appears to be independent - more than enough, when taken in tandem with those two. Changed to keep. MrZaiustalk 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the cruft point, possibly, but only one other editor used the term. On the other, he may not have, but the key point about verifiable sources was accurate until recently. The distinction between location and book is irrelevant. MrZaiustalk 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to verifiability, perhaps, but the nature of the subject of the article is still fundamental. An article about, say, the planets of Firefly is a very different case than an article about a movie set on them, so is one about Glorantha and one about a book set in it, or a RuneQuest supplement set in it. I can't trust someone deeply in the wrong about what an article is about to make informed decisions about it, nor to do even basic research about it - both of which are vital, as the deletion process is by necessity geared towards what articles can be. That's why we require verifiability rather than verification, et cetera. --Kizor 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more important with the current nominator, because Isle of Dread is emphatically not an isolated case. In the last few days he's voted for the deletion of general lists of Jedi knights because they're not useful "to people who don't play the game", nominated an article about a fictional setting as one about a fictional race (and asserted that it's about a race when asked), and made several nominations that, voters have declared, have little to no bearing on the articles they're about. One even wrote that he'd want the article deleted, but can't in good conscience support a fatally flawed nomination. --Kizor 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Tree Steiner School

[edit]
Silver Tree Steiner School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on non-notable school in WA, it fails WP:N, and WP:ORG. Asserts no notability what-so-ever. Twenty Years 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the Steiner movement's work in Australia may be notable, individual schools are clearly not - almost by definition they'll be very similar to each other, and very small, and lacking in reliable sources documenting much more than their existence. Orderinchaos 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand, from a talk page comment I just wrote, I doubt the history and challenges between one school and the next would differ much (and may well be heavily interlinked), but they'd certainly face unique challenges collectively as a group. A friend of mine has a kid going to a Montessori primary school, so I'm well aware of the potential for an interesting and probably well-sourced article. Orderinchaos 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable school and lack of reliable sources. Keb25 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nothing especially notable here. —Moondyne 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having attempted to cajole the original writer of this article to provide further information - that is all he came up with - there is notability on the basis of its location and historical context - but once again knowing the school and their own attitude towards such issues - it would be unlikely that I would be able to provide the third party sources in the time that afds run - I would suggest that it seems so easy to join the N issue from the writers inability to understand basic research procedures - once again where the afd system can be used - and show little or no understanding of issues of where some articles come from. cheers SatuSuro 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be more than open to the article being re-created, if these third-party sources are found, but find you will not. Hell, its part of EiA - im definately into helping the page out. I think what OIC suggested is quite on the money, i was originally going to prod the article, but being a Steiner school, i thought it deserved an AfD. The school network is itself notable IMO, so maybe this could be covered in that article, when it is created. Twenty Years 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - would suggest following on from OIC's comment it would probably be better to have a steiner schools of WA article - it would not fall into the primary school = not N, process and would be more likely to have a few easier to find refs to cope withthe N issue - either merge up or start new SatuSuro 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wily Wild West

[edit]
The Wily Wild West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

School play. No reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, a very bad article but on a decent subject, apparently. Cruftbane 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic anthropology

[edit]
Genetic anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently "Genetic anthropology is a new branch of scientific study" - which would qualify for a {{fact}} tag if there were any references in this article, but there aren't. I think this might be just a bit too new for us. Cruftbane 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually no I didn't and I should have. I read "new branch of scientific study", speculation about something due in July 2008 and not updated, noticed that it had zero references and assumed that we would have a much better article on the same subject somewhere else. My bad, I guess. Cruftbane 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy

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

A website for wallpapers. Not exactly uncommon, and there are no independent sources cited. It's been kept before, last year, but is still essentially unsourced and lacking a proper assertion of notability. It also reads as a collection of information from the primary source. Cruftbane 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Even though the article has survived for an amount of time, the site itself has been around for quite a while (as early as I can see, 1999), and I've found some mentions of it on g4tv.com, and mentions of it being one of the oldest digital wallpaper websites around. Zchris87v 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep being given a "Best X" award in 2001 (see external links) may give it the award criterion in WP:WEB, but I don't know if the award was well-known six years ago. At any rate, if one were to look at DB as a corporation, it has been covered by a reliable source (again, ZDNet for Yahoo) and it has been the Download of the Day on G4 as well. Will (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I just tagged the article with {{advert}}. If you resolve this issue by tearing out content, there's still an asserttion of notabiltiy by being in the "top 100" by a major news article - plus there is a news report that his work was copied without attribution. --Sigma 7 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very well known and popular website, notable. It's not just random collection of user created wallpaper like many sites - it's all by one very prolific artist who charges for his work - and many people pay willingly. The article does deserver the ad tag however, so submitting for cleanup seems the best course of action. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. Eluchil404 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ashworth

[edit]
Jessica Ashworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An actress. Er, that's it. Created by an account whose edits are to this and to Richard Peter Ashworth - almost certainly the account is one or the other individual. Well down the billing in the few things she's been in, with the exception of one indie film which has not plot summary on IMDB. I would say that this person fails the WP:BIO notability guideline, and the article fails to credibly assert notability, also fails to cite any non-trivial independent coverage or any independent reliable source. Cruftbane 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep - according to yahoo movie, she is one of the stars in a movie "Becoming Jane" from Mirimax films linked below. Starring in a movie from a big production company should be worth at least something, no? I do however fell that the article needs to be expanded, as it stands, it is too short. [21]Iamchrisryan 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Though she was billed 11th in "Becoming Jane", she contributed to the soundtrack. She was also billed second in a 2005 film called "Monsters", a possibly notable film.--Sethacus 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment/correction Excuse me, it was 2004 and it does appear notable.--Sethacus 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Second billing in an underground indie film by a director on whom we don't have an article. Not that notable, perhaps :o) Cruftbane 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have articles on a lot of notable people/things. Wikipedia isn't God. By your logic, if we dohave an article on a film, it's notable, n'est pas? :)By the way, if we did have an article on Robert Morgan, it would pass notability as he has been profiled by the BBC as well as he has won a number of awards, including for the film you so callously dismiss as an "underground indie film". Also, I'd like to remind those deleting solely on the basis of possible COI, that's not a very good excuse.--Sethacus 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the subject is one we should have an article on but there's a problem with the text as it's currently written, rewrite the text. As long as there's something worth salvaging deletion is counterproductive. Bryan Derksen 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction

[edit]
List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Writing introductions for books isn't that notable. This is very trivial and non-notable. Being a popular article doesn't justify the introductions are notable. RobJ1981 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to Glass-bottom boat by Deltopia. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass bottomed boat

[edit]
Glass_bottomed_boat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article needs to be deleted as per WP:NoteCarter | Talk it up 10:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You (Celine Dion song)

[edit]
I_Love_You_(Celine_Dion_song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This song wasn't released as a single by any of the two singers. It is completly unknown for the public. None of the singers performed this song live or talked about it in interviews. This song is meaningless and there is no reason for making an article about it. Max24 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Surrender

[edit]
I_Surrender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This song wasn't released as a single. It has no meaning in Celine Dion's career. There is no reason for making an article about it. Max24 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MdlCMS

[edit]
MdlCMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable  Andreas  (T) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC) This is a software system that has no google entries apart from itself. The description on the website[23] is entirely in Greek.  Andreas  (T) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been translated, but the notability and conflict of interest issues are still there.  Andreas  (T) 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nox's First Studio Album

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nox's First Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced crystalgazing article Will (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rocket000 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the rapper himself doesn't have an article so that probably means that the album will not be notable unless something big happens.--JForget 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or a place to promote projects in development. -Jmh123 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete both.. CitiCat ♫ 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvano Raggio Garibaldi

[edit]
Silvano Raggio Garibaldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Genoa CFC youth player with no professional/first team appearance. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Angelo 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrea Signorini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

:Mirko Lamantia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep - all three have been officially named as members of the senior team, not just the youth squad[24] (two of them with prominent squad numbers; 13 and 15). As it is a Serie A club that is notable in itself. Lamantia has also played professionally for Novara, Raggio Garibaldi has represented the Italian national team at under-18 level (which shows notablity). - Soprani 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Signorini and Lamantia are not cited in the Genoa roster. Secondly, WP:BIO clearly defines a notable athlete as a "Competitor who have played in a fully professional league", not a "competitor who is part of a first team squad". In the end, there is no source stating Lamantia played with Novara's first team, and we already deleted several Under-18, Under-19 and Under-20 players who failed to fulfil the basic requirement of having played in a professional first team match. --Angelo 16:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serie C1 is a professional league, that is the level Mirko Lamantia played last season. The highest non-pro Italian league is Serie D - Soprani 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus has it that players pass notability while being first-team squad members at major clubs. This can be reviewed if they leave without playing, and don't join another notable club. ArtVandelay13 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why do they have numbers? ArtVandelay13 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Italy, to have a shirt number does not necessarily mean to be a first team player. There is no limit for jersey numbers, so Italian teams used to assign up to 45/50 numbers, usually including many of their youth team players. For instance, Palermo assigned an official number to all of their Under-20 youth team players in their previous (2006-07) season. In fact, if you look at Genoa CFC website, they do not list Signorini and Lamantia in the first team. --Angelo 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most leagues don't have a limit on numbers, but giving a player #13 or #15 must mean something. ArtVandelay13 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing, especially in a country where a keeper can play with the #10. By the way, a former Livorno youth player was recently deleted, after he was first kept mainly because of his first team jersey (it was #17, namely); he obviously did not play a single match. --Angelo 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order - individual article talk consensus cannot override WP:BIO, an integral Wikipedia guideline. Ref (chew)(do) 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the threeneither of the two have played at the required level, never mind if they've been given squad numbers. Comment - the current "Keep" votes are whims, and do not reflect correct policy in Wikipedia. Their ages (17 or thereabouts) generally make it unlikely that they will be given games in the near future. Representing their country at full international level is the only guarantee of notability outside this. Articles, if deleted, can however be re-introduced once this has happened. Ref (chew)(do) 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am dropping Lamantia from the list, as he appears to have made 2 appearances with Novara in the Serie C1[25]. I first nominated it as his article did not prove a source stating he actually played for that team, and the infobox did not feature the number of appearances he made. --Angelo 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I don't know from football, but if the reason that they aren't notable is that they haven't played with the notable team yet, and we expect them to do so soon, why don't we move the articles into the userspace until their first games? Clearly we have an active enough football following that someone will notice when they play their first games, and then we can move them back to the main encyclopedia. Deltopia 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the suggestion, as this would set a precedent for anyone wanting to 'store' non-notable articles until such time as they become so - it could run into thousands, all nicely put away in the cupboard for later (unless, that is, the potential of the NN is not realised). Non-notable is non-notable now, and that's what we are giving our thoughts on. Ref (chew)(do) 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? If I wanted right now, I could create 500 non-notable articles in my userspace and "store" them as you say - you cannot CSD userspace articles unless they violate one of the G deletion arguments (not the A arguments, since they aren't in the article space). ugen64 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two per nom as they have not yet played in a professional league. There's no need to keep the articles in a virtual cupboard somewhere as an admin, as Angelo points out, can restore the deleted article if they should go on to play in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was fire-breathing keep. Or maybe just a regular keep. It might be time for a more centralized debate on the notability of "in popular culture" articles, since they keep coming to AFD. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Godzilla in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsourced trivial list of Godzilla mentions isn't a suitable article. The important mentions should be in the Godzilla article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Keep Godzilla is almost culturally significant enough to overcome my objections, but not quite based on discussion here. JJL 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the usual directory of non-associated items. The momentary presence of Godzilla or the appearance of a clip from a Godzilla movie in the background of a TV show or the mention of the word "Godzilla" in a book or TV show or song does not mean that there is any relationship between the items in which the mention appears. "Someone said 'Godzilla'" is not a theme. Otto4711 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep items are associated, and godzilla related popular culture is transnationally significant and notable. this is not about having a theme, it is about having notability and a relationship. My concern is that this will be an immense list though and may need sublists.--Buridan 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment obviously someone hasn't studied mereology or set theory.... to be related to one thing, to hold one thing in common, is to have an association. this is an especially strong one as it has a unity of reference, there is but one godzilla, and these all refer to it. whereas something like books of dorothy parker would be weak as both books and dorothy parker exist nominally in plurality... you see it is not the inclusion of the word 'godzilla' but the direct reference to the transnational cultural icon godzilla that matters. you are looking at them as spurious relations, like you could substitute 'dorothy parker' for 'godzilla' and still have the same meaning and list. If that were the case, then I would agree that it is an unassociated list, however, I think we both agree that doing the 'dorothy parker' to 'godzilla' switch, would not work for these and it demonstrates that there is a substantive relation.--Buridan 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. Even if there is some association between items that just happen to include a particular word or phrase, the standard for inclusion here is that the association not be a loose one. It is monumentally unreasonable to contend that the association between the items on this list is anything other than loose. Otto4711 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, not nonsense. If there is a significant difference in human understanding between the term provided (godzilla) and a random term(dorothy parker), then the relationship is also significant and likely worth noting. Here we have a clear situation where the actually thing that these disparate things are attached matters in the way that you understand the things listed. If it were not so, I would agree with you. also, claiming 'nonsense' to logic and wp:common is not a generally a good strategy. Granted I will admit some of the things on the list are likely going to be less strongly associated to the central relation, but that many of them are very strongly related is what justifies the keep, the rest are issues for cleanup.--Buridan 16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I said "nonsense" because I thought that saying "bullshit" would be considered uncivil. But a fertilizer by any other name, I guess. For all of your talking in circles, you have yet to establish that the mere mention of a single word in a two-hour movie means that the movie is in any way meaningfully associated with a song that mentions the same word in its lyrics. The film is not about Godzilla in any meaningful way, the song is not apparently about Godzilla in any meaningful way and the association "they have the same word in them" is not meaningful. Nor have you demonstrated that someone's use of the words "Dorothy Parker" is any more or less significant than the use of the word "Godzilla." Otto4711 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there things in the list that are tied to godzilla in a meaningful way? yes. are they notable, yes. is everything as meaningful as anything else, no. see, we agree, but I don't choose strawman examples to illustrate my point. My point is clear, that the list has a solid point of association. Your position is that it doesn't, which is clearly false based on my argument. --Buridan 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a book on "Foo in popular culture" does not mean that a laundry list of every appearance of Foo in every everything ever is a worthwhile article. Your quote from Jimbo Wales is wildly out of context. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. This has nothing to do with whether or not we "wish" people wouldn't create laundry lists of passing references to things. It has to do with whether this particular article meets all relevant policies and guidelines. Your blatant appeal to authority notwithstanding, this article does not meet the relevant policy WP:NOT. Otto4711 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than just one book or reference exists, though:
Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spamming the AFD doesn't change the simple fact that a bare list of times someone said "Godzilla" on TV does not get past WP:NOT#DIR. Nor is WP:NOT#PAPER a free pass for articles that do not pass relevant policies and guidelines. You know this so I have to question your repeated citing of it. Otto4711 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that "spamming the AFD"? He went and did some research, which is something I'd like to see from more AFD regulars. Besides, the current state of the article is generally irrelevant. This is a clean-up situation, not a deletion situation. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some more sources which may be helpful:
  • weak keep barely notable but it is notable. ILovePlankton(L—n) 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Godzilla has been influential on culture, but this is the run of the mill "x in popular culture" article that is composed mostly of mentions of "x" in movie and TV dialogue. It's comparable to the "Beethoven in Popular Culture" IPC article that referred to the St. Bernard movies. Mandsford 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ludicrous article given that Godzilla doesn't exist outside of popular culture. How on earth can one have an article about a pop. culture phenomenon's pop. cultural significance??? Infinite regress anyone? Bigdaddy1981 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not inconceivable. There is plenty of critical analysis about Godzilla's cultural influence and role as a Japanese icon – enough so that we could probably develop an independent fork. I do agree that the current article needs a lot of work, and maybe a new title, but that's outside the realm of AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is scholarly work done on Godzilla but that doesn't change the fact that Godzilla himself is a pop. culture figure. If we had an afd on an article on scholarly work on Godzilla I'd agree with your argument but to me this seems an unneeded extension - surely these things (if notable) should be in the main Godzilla article. Bigdaddy1981 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Zaga says, it's not inconceivable that a pop culture creation can have a separate influence on culture beyond its original appearance. Godzilla is not exactly the best example, since there have been so many Godzilla movies besides the original. On the other hand, there are some fictional works that appeared once-- for instance, "The Stepford Wives" --which became more famous in later references than they were originally. As another commentor notes below, this type of "references 'n mentions" trivia would usually be fine as part of the parent article (which I would say is true about the hypothetical Stepford Wives example). Mandsford 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about "x in popular culture" nominations: Why are these even brought to AFD? Every one of these articles could, at the very least, be trimmed and merged to another article. I don't see why we need deletion tools to deal with these pages. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just really like deleting things. Artw 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Godzilla.. --UsaSatsui 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the Godzilla article. Godzilla is by definition popular culture to begin with, so why two articles need to exist is beyond me. This kind of article is also, as I've said before, a magnet for people playing "I Spy" with appearances of the entity in question. At most, the best-sourced of these I Spy results should be in the main Godzilla article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Zagalejo. This is definitely a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thorough rewrite and keep I usually don't agree with the "X in popular culture" lists, because they are to hard to manage and there is usually little merit in managing them anyway, but I have to agree with the "keep" votes here. Godzilla is a major pop-culture icon, and a user above has come up with more than enough verifiable sources to prove this. My suggested strategy for this article would be destroy and rebuild - there is enough material out there to make this into a real article, not just a list that will inevitably beckon inane aditions of the type: "X character in Y movie says 'Godzilla' at one point". TomorrowTime 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean, maybe merge if needed... but don't delete I like the idea of this article. It needs to be purged of a lot of things, but the theory is there. If it doesn't make the cut I'd like a chance to try and merge it in to an existing Godzilla article.--Torchwood Who? 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean. I say this not just because I created this article, but because the Godzilla article is bloated enough on its own and Godzilla's impact on culture outside of his own films is a topic worthy of discussion; as was already mentioned, many books have been written on the subject.

K00bine 10:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per ample preceedent of how the community views "in popular culture" articles [26]. This is nothing but trivia, and if you want/need to explain why Godzilla is important in popular culture, do it on the main Godzilla page, not this cruft trivia spin-off. Dannycali 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Godzilla disambiguous page alone lists plenty of articles on wp and there are books on the subject. The article is a list in dire need but deleting is not the help it deserves. Fix it through regular editing. Benjiboi 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe rewrite, I think it needs to be written as an encyclopedic article discussing Godzilla's impact on pop culture and then have a few examples here and there. Unless there are other pages like this one for other topics in which case leave it as is. Unfortunately the only thing I have to base it on is Wookiepedia's Star Wars references page but needless to say they aren't wikipedia.--Anguirus111 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete kill all pop culture articles in the face. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real helpful SWATJester... Fosnez 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodlettsville Church of the Nazarene, Goodlettsville, Tennessee

[edit]
Goodlettsville Church of the Nazarene, Goodlettsville, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. This article has had notability and orphan tags sitting on it since May. szyslak 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Towson Maimer

[edit]
The Towson Maimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article itself claims to be a rumour and although it is not a speedy deletion candidate I have nominated it for deletion Y4kk 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external links given don't mention the rumour, so there's no way of telling if this urban legend is notable. Totnesmartin 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this before... and so has my mother... a grad. so it's legit! im glad someone put it up here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.90.188 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasNo consensus While I do not believe that the bit of "confusion" by the nominator is enough to abandon the AfD, I can't ignore that there isn't a clear consensus to delete this article. The suggested merge target has been deleted, so that idea won't work. Users are welcome to merge this article elsewhere (that doesn't require the AfD process).-Andrew c [talk] 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ket (Greyhawk)

[edit]
Ket (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not to be confused with the Ket people of Siberia, this article non-notable fictional race is not backed up by independent sources, but is largely an in universe plot summary.--Gavin Collins 11:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response on 15 July 2007 Robbstrd wrote "The native folk of Ket resemble the mix of cultures that crowd the nation's marketplaces......Racially speaking, Kettites are the least typical of the Baklunish folk [27]". If this is not about a race, I don't know what is. --Gavin Collins 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Yen

[edit]
Tricia Yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does claim that this porn actress is notable per WP:PORNBIO. No evidence found from reliable sources. The Arcade Wikipedia article says Yen appeared on their album cover, but it is unsourced and no outside sources found to confirm this I.D. • Gene93k 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. - Mike Rosoft 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah

[edit]
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. Unverifiable bio. Keb25 10:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persona_4

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Persona_4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is absolutely no proof of Atlus ever mentioning anything about another Persona game being developed. The rumors all started from Magic Box, which is not a reliable source for this kind of information. I believe the article should be removed until Atlus makes an official statement, otherwise the Persona 4 article serves no purpose as its purely based on rumors. Haruyasha 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in 2005 that Atlus was working on an SMT game for the PS3, but that is the last bit of concrete information. I hardly consider Shane Bettenhausen spouting off a MagicBox rumour as any sort of confirmation. How soon can this article be purged?

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

The result was Keep and rename. Eluchil404 05:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Rochville university

[edit]
La Rochville university (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unable to verify this entity exists at all. No GHits except for WP and mirrors; article contains absolutely no sources for claims ranging from 6,000 students to the participation of world leaders in its cornerstone-laying. Claims affiliation with SUNY Concord, an apparently non-existent campus of the New York State University system. Name is a variation on known diploma mill Rochville University. Robertissimo 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information and Computer Technology Society

[edit]
Information and Computer Technology Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club, filled with vanity pics, user has deleted prod and db templates with no attempt to make any claims of notability. Blowdart 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per consensus, almost WP:SNOW. Bearian 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental prayer

[edit]
Mental prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable religious fancruft. Seems to be a synthesis of very POV ideas on a non-notable topic, impossible to verify or make neutral.SpongebobSchwammkopf 06:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow reading

[edit]
Slow reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research by User:Johnmiedema. It is a copy and paste from his own blog, and 2 of the references quoted are from his own blog posts. Another reference is from something alegedly written by Nietzsche, but this article really has little to do with it. The last reference is from a single news editorial and has little to do with this article again, besides its title. Here is a copy of his references:

  • [30] - His blog.
  • [31]Slow Reading Lists (and the meaning of Slow Reading). Some stuff by Nietzshe, not peer reviewed, it's just a preface from a novel I think.
  • [32] The news article.
  • [33] Another blog entry of his.

Althena 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Also violates WP:POV ARendedWinter 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can only see this being notable as part of the Slow movement article, guiven that there's only one decent source. Will also need a POV-purge. Totnesmartin 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Neitzsche quote is, in fact, relevant. It adds context. As one person in this debates says the quote is alleged, that can be fixed by a simple citation.

If it would be better to include slow reading as a part of the "slow" lifestyle article, so be it, but as far as I know it is much better to have more information than less. Slow reading as a learning style is being researched by educators even as we speak, and I imagine that it would be a good idea to add research to this page, rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittent (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — Kittent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do think some revisions are in order, and I appreciate the feedback. Few notes:

Re: content - My intended content changes include: more scholarly research on the subject, better integration with the Slow movement literature, comparison to related concepts such as close reading, and contrast with others such as speed reading.

Re:references - I think the Nietzsche quote is a very appropriate historical reference. It is widely cited on the web, and often used as search keywords to find my blog on the subject. I intend to keep that reference. - Re: news editorial, Waters is Executive Humanities Editor at Harvard University Press, and wrote a very good article on the subject. Unfortunately, her article is no longer available on the open web. I think this link should be kept as a reference to that article. User:Johnmiedema — Johnmiedema (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Re: Merge. I am undertaking edits to the article to more clearly articulate the dual origins of Slow reading. The concept traditionally comes from the study of philosophy and literature, long before the Slow movement. The Slow movement has revitalized interest. Merging with just the Slow movement would eclipse the traditional origin. Please look for revisions to the entry in the next couple of weeks. User:Johnmiedema 8:59, 2 October 2007 (EST)

Please see extensive revisions to the current article. Major changes include: complete re-write from objective POV, section on related terms, discussion of dual origin in philosophy/literature and slow movement, annotation of research and related materials from multiple independent sources. I believe this answers all the original concerns. Please indicate if anything further is required to take the entry off the deleted list. Regards, John User:Johnmiedema 16:30, 4 October 2007 (EST)

  • Keep - I nominated this for deletion because of the reasons listed above (original research). However I think that now it might stand on its own and thanks to the new sources, the re-write, and now it does look like a more notable topic than just original research from a blog. Althena 06:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Jones (editor)

[edit]
Allan Jones (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged as unsourced over a year ago and has not been sourced. It asserts that the subject is a "prominent" music journalist but it contains no links to biographical coverage to substantiate that claim. The only links are to the publication he edits and to the blog he writes. Cruftbane 06:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I do however strongly recommend that this be combined with the article about Opposition to war with with Iran and give the combined article some NPOV title (like Support and Opposition to the War with Iran). JoshuaZ 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for war against Iran

[edit]
Support for war against Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is a hopeless case of US-centric views and can never be npov. It was a candidate for speedy deletion a while ago but was not deleted. The article is more or less a case of wp:soap. Anything of value can be merged to the article United States-Iran relations. Jayran 06:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear NPOV. Plus which, it's got the wrong name -- if this article must be, it should be titled Causes for war between US and Iran (or something similarly more specific). Deltopia 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support reflects the grievances that could cause the war. Causes as a title would violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article is about support for the war from the media and politicians today.--Southern Texas 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The chief problem of this article is that serves as little more than a reiteration of certain segments of the US government and some of neo-con segments in the American political scene. Anything that this article has can easily be encapsulated in United States-Iran relations - this article functions as little more than a pov-fork and wp:soap - both of which are not good things for Wikipedia. Jayran 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how. I don't see anything in it that is opinionated in any way. You may disagree with what the politicians and some in the media are saying but that does not mean that it shouldn't be on wikipedia when it is based on fact. The fact is that some support a military attack on Iran and its wikipedia's job to present this fact.--Southern Texas 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly bollocks, as it entirely consists of quotes from politicians taken out of context, with no consideration of anything else they might have said. 199.71.183.2 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon user is correct, for instance, here is a quote from the source for Hillary Clinton - "Clinton, who's running far ahead in New Hampshire polls, Obama who's second and Edwards third, also agreed on Iranian nuclear weapons, but none threatened war." She says that all options will be considered can hardly be construed as a case for supporting a war against Iran. The authors of the article try to defuse the appearance that this is little more than a soapbox by forcing Clinton in to the article. I would like to see a case for why any relevant info from this article, if any, can't be folded in to the already existent article on US relations with Iran. This article besides being a case of pov and wp:soap, is also a case of wp:syn. Jayran 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the only problem is the quote with Clinton then I'll remove it. I didn't even add it in the first place. It would not be practical to merge it into the already huge Iran-American relations page since this page is a very specific article about Support for military action against Iran. This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist? That would really be the only reason to delete the article. I still haven't gotten an explanation of how this is POV.--Southern Texas 03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't give a good explanation. How are the sources just opinions, explain this. Some sources include NBC and the New York Times.--Southern Texas 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the name? Do you dispute the fact that some support war against Iran? You make no sense and you are not being rational.--Southern Texas 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this: WP:POVFORK#Articles whose subject is a POV--Southern Texas 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That argument could, if desired, be applied to any POV fork. The case in point is less like the case of Creationism/Evolution (where "schools of thought" have developed that hold opposing views based on different theories, models or belief systems) and more like Level of support for evolution which documents opinions, on one quite specific issue, which may be held for any reason. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view

All the above guidelines have been met. This article is giving information about a point of view that supports military action against Iran just as Opposition to military action against Iran gives information about a point of view that opposes military action. The article must not be merged since it is not about US-Iran relations but support among people in the United States and Europe. I ask that the nomination be withdrawn on grounds that the article follows policy as has been demonstrated.--Southern Texas 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually read the examples of acceptable examples of pov based articles. This article is nowhere near those examples. Despite your claims that this can't be deleted and merged with the relevant articles doesn't make an ounce of sense. US-Iran Relations could easily mention that US politicians have been sabre-rattling. Just about any media source, especially ones from outside the US - like Le Monde, the BBC, or the Guardian, will take this in to account in their stories about relations between Iran and the US. The UN resolution article could mention that there is, under certain circumstances, a willingess to go war among some citizens in the West. The article does suffer from wp:syn and povfork. It is an effort to disregard the other side by claiming that is like the creationism/evolution debate. Jayran 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. Would you also like to delete the opposition page? The fact is that this exists and I really don't see your point in trying to censor this fact. You can go and make claims that this article "suffer[s] from wp:syn and povfork" but you don't cite how. All guidelines are followed this article will stand despite your efforts to censor it remember Wikipedia is not censored. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you.--Southern Texas 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of always referencing idontlikeit, actually look at the page for United States-Iran Relations, Nuclear program of Iran, and the UN resolution page. They all have sections dealing with what is discussd in this page and with better context. There is a lengthy section in the US-Iran article on the US attitude, sabre-rattling, and attitude towards a war with Iran or such movement towards one. It mentions relevant politicans, public support, and posturing by various factions in the US political establishment. It provides a wider context versus this disparate collection of views from various figures in the US political scence and that one poll of Europeans that really says nothing. This isn't censorship but an effort to achieve NPOV and avoiding such problems as povforks and wp:syn. Jayran 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is in other places then the information can be added to this article and make it easier to see all the information in one place. I now understand why you feel it would be best to delete the article but I would disagree and point out that the article can be expanded and wikified. If we have all this similar information spread all over different articles it would harder for a user to understand the support for military action and harder to go more in depth. A separate article for "Opposition" made it easier for readers to understand the issue and users were also able to go much more in depth about the subject. The need for this article is just about information distribution and organization. The subject matter of the article is POV but the information is presented neutrally, opposing views are linked and therefore it cannot be cited as a POV fork. Just give it time to expand and let the article grow.--Southern Texas 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real reasons for deletion have been given other than that people just don't like what the article is talking about. Sorry but these are the facts. Absolutely no "POV" has been pointed out and if you actually read the article you see there is absolutely no bias but just a presentation of the facts.--Southern Texas 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, most users here agree that this is an article that falls under wp:soap, wp:syn, and wp:povfork. It does as there are numerous relevant articles where anything of value here can be merged in to. Why on Earth this US-centric article can't be folded in to United States-Iran relations or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 hasn't been explained. The article takes comments from US politicians and runs with it in such a way that is misleading for people reading the article. WP:POVFORK states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion." This article inherently fails at this test. Jayran 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained above but I guess I will explain it again, "This isn't even about relations between Iran and the United States but sentiments that support military actions against Iran. Do you contest that these sentiments exist?" Since when is it wrong to have an article that talks about sentiment from the Media and Politicians supporting an action, along with polls from the United States and Europe. The article is about "Support" if one wants to read about "Opposition" they can find the appropriate page. The article is fact and would inappropriate to delete or merge per the reasoning I stated above.--Southern Texas 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if people want to read about opposition they can find the appropriate page. Isn't that the definition of a POV fork? A neutral name needs to be found if the article is to comply with NPOV. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not trying to convince people of a point. It is giving information about those who support a point. The article gives information about a movement to support military action just as the other article gives information about a movement to oppose military action. The movement exists and people must be aware of it.--Southern Texas 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando De la Flor

[edit]
Fernando De la Flor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor whose only appeared in one episode of one television show. Possibly speediable as A7. Sasha Callahan 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Jewel Aich. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra (Review) 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Eich

[edit]
Jewel Eich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The "Banglapedia" article cited is the single Google hit for this name, or for the last name combined with words like "magic", "magician", etc. If he's internationally famous as claimed, the name would show up somewhere but it doesn't even appear in English-language sites in Bangladesh. Accounting4Taste 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your input. I figured out what the problem is. I've spelt the name as Banglapedia has - "Eich". But an alternative spelling is "Aich". Wikipedia already has an article on him (as Jewel Aich). I was not aware of this when I created the article. Anyway, sorry for for the confusion. Please proceed to deletion and arrange to redirect a search for "Jewel Eich" to "Jewel Aich"- as I don't know how to do this. Thanks. --Thinking-ape.

Hi Thinking-ape, thanks for your comment. I will redirect your article for you. Totnesmartin 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blades of Thunder II. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Hawks 2

[edit]
Battle Hawks 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game doesnt seem to exist, it has been "released" for a year and i can not find infomation on any sites about this game Salavat 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If thats true then, i support redirect. Salavat 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed ghits. Besides, it also fails WP:CORP as it doesn't exist.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overtime (TV series)

[edit]
Overtime (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unnotable biography program (or Biography clone) about league players produced by the NBA using archive footage and airing on the league's cable network. One reference to the show can be found on the NBA TV site and is a copy-vio of the content on the page. Otherwise no others can be found. Nate 04:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- It may not be as notable as, say, Sportscenter or even NFL Films, but it's a show on a nationally-seen network, involving a nationally-known league, and that's notable enough. -- azumanga 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus JoshuaZ 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob cuba

[edit]
Bob cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable band. Google results show nothing notable; just some non-reliable sources that don't prove notability. — i said 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The text of the article confirms that the band's work does not establish it as notable. Unless several sources are found and added to justify notability under the general guidelines, this needs to be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a song used in a t.v. show is within the Wikipedia criteria for notability, though it would not be enough in and of itself for the band to have it's own article. However, References to sources such as NME clearly indicate the band has been well documented by other major media. The article could use better citations to those sources, but that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Dead-Air 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album of the week choice by a major UK newspaper (The Sun), song used in a TV programme, seems as though they have toured the UK, multiple reliable sources given. That's WP:BAND's criteria #1, #10 and possibly #4. Bondegezou 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep JoshuaZ 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project

[edit]
John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article describes (in too-glowing terms) a chatterbot that was (is?) little more than a celebrity-themed ELIZA: just another non-notable Web toy. (For context, see Triumph PC's page about their other "Persona-Bots", and try out "Saucy Jacky", their Jack-the-Ripper-themed nonsense chatterbot.) Delete as non-notable and possibly no-longer-existent. --Quuxplusone 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Essentially non-notable, although there are lots of lazy bloggers who think it's witty to go there, have a conversation and transcribe it into their blog. Not more than one reputable arm's-length third party source found (I think the Austin link on their site is a kind of blog too). I think the whole thing can go under the entry at List of chatterbots. Accounting4Taste 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I added a feature from the Evening Standard (a major London newspaper), and the other article from the Austin Chronicle isn't a blog, that's multiple non-trivial independent sources, so this passes notability guidelines. Masaruemoto 05:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of chatterbots or Delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but the official site doesn't allow visitors to converse with the chatterbot, right? I'm not saying it's a hoax, of course, but it seems awkward to have an article on a non-notable software program where the only evidence of its existence is a few lines of transcript from a couple of newspaper columns. AI programs in particular attract inflated claims; see the article on Racter for a historical example. If we remove all the unverifiable stuff from the JLAIP article, is anything left? Compare to Triumph PC's Saucy Jacky,[34] which is equally non-notable, does verifiably exist, is verifiably not much of a chatterbot, and (rightly) has no Wikipedia article. --Quuxplusone 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link was incorrect, it took me 10 seconds to fix it. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:WEB before continuing to claim this is "non-notable" as there are three articles from reliable sources about this project. Also, everything in this article is verifiable, so there is nothing to remove. By Wikipedia standards it is clearly notable. (I notice you added a "citation needed" tag to a statement which has been easily verifiable since January by looking at the Austin Chronicle reference. Such tags are for unsourced claims only). Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with List of chatterbots. Absolutely trivial Doc Strange 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; There are three reliable published works which confirm the notability of this project. I don't believe the people suggesting "delete" understand the notability requirements, which state, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No reason to merge either, it is a short article but it can be expanded, and I am trying to find the comments Yoko Ono made about this project in an interview several years ago, which would add more notability. Masaruemoto 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. This has been listed for 19 days with only 4 relevant comments outside of the nom. Of course it would have been great if there was a lot of discussion and a clearer consensus. But what is clear is that there isn't a pull to delete this article, and that it has been on AfD for a long time. I'm boldly closing instead of relisting. -Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation Quebec

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

procedural nomination Previously considered at AFD and Deleted; current content is substantially different from originally deleted content, but remains concerned with the same topic and was subjected to PROD nomination for deletion. PROD nominator states: "This entry was already deleted August 9, 2003 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affiliation Quebec. Subsequent registration as a political party is not confirmed in any secondary source (including the website of the Director General of Elections of Quebec." If someone can track down the 2003 AFD, that would be helpful to reference here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endosomatophilia

[edit]
Endosomatophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unverifiable neologism that has no assertion of notability. What this subject is not:

  • A term recognized or used in any medical, academic, psycological, psychiatric or literary field or work.
  • Verifiable, no reliable source has ever been found on "Endosomatophilia"
  • Notable, no reason or claim has ever been put forward why this is a notable subject.
  • Encyclopedic, with no reliable sources or any assertion of relavence to anything this is a dicdef on the level of the Urban dictionary.

This is one of several terms created by a memeber of a fetish internet forum to describe a shared fantasy of some of the members of the discussion board. It's not a real term and this article has been created already once (along with Unbirth and Vorarephilia) by members of their respective internet community in an effort to advertise and legitimize their sexual fetish. This article was already created once and deleted with a Prod. Unbirth was redirected to Vorarephilia the frequent target of soapboxing by the aformentioned internet fetish community. NeoFreak 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If weirdness were a cause for deletion Wikipedia would not exist.

Endosomatophilia has become a widely used term on the internet and on IRC (see a Google search). It will not just go away as a term. It deserves a definition that explains its presence as a commonly used term -- by giving the present meaning of its usage.

It is definitely not a pleasant term -- to most people. In a similar sense, atonality in music is not pleasant -- to most people, but deserves (and has) a definition.

Further, because some commonly used term is not a fantasy of mine or yours -- it is not sufficient reason to debase or censor any one of the many thousands of "internet communities".

I am not an ACLU attorney, but am trying to stand up for freedom of speech. In that regard Wikipedia has a fine reputation... up till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.180.52 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and its policy on original research. Our guidlines on neologisms and reliable sources would no doubt be of help as well. It would behove you to understand what wikipedia is and is not before you add any additional insights. NeoFreak 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeoFreak, I had already looked at those categories and compared many other terms supported by Wikipedia to the exact same criteria for Endosomatophilia... and found this term as being less a neologism, more reliable, and as well documented as those that are indeed included.

I tried to overlook your misspelling above, as we all make mistakes. I hope your mindset is flexible, as so many people have minds that are closed and stenotic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave that reference as a lead, not as a RS for a keep. It helps to have some information about how its used to decide & in case someone wants to work on it. I don't really have the least interest or even willingness to explore the necessary sources. DGG (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YEet you want it kept on the off chance that someone else might be inclined to follow an unreliable source and then might be able to find a verifiable fact for what has so far proven to be a made up word for a sub-genre of a sub-section of a nearly unheard of internet born fetish? Come to think of it I'm not sure that this article meets a single criteria for inclusion at all. Can you think of a single redeeming feature of this article besides the vauge idea that this is an area that is "hard to source"? Wouldn't that be a reason not to keep it?NeoFreak 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No shit, Sherlock

[edit]
No shit, Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced for ages, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Verifiability issues. Wafulz 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as unsalvageable advertising.-Wafulz 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wycheproof races

[edit]
Wycheproof races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:POV, reads like an advert Tiptoety 02:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No Consensus. Eluchil404 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posterity of Heaven

[edit]
Posterity of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, which claims that the Koreans are considered offsprings of Heaven, contains original research. It references only two sources, neither of which seems particularly credible. I concede that Korean mythology does contain some people who came down from the heaven, but then that is also true for many cultures around the world. Hence, this does not warrant a separate article in Wikipedia. Moreover, it is patently false that "[t]he Koreans usually believe that their countries are the nation by the Posterity of Heaven." Consider that Christianity and Buddhism are two most popular religions in Korea. Yongjik 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery (Australian band)

[edit]
Misery (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Nanabozho 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with the disclosure that I am not objective, and that it's a complicated situation with the Misery (band) (Based in Minneapolis, MN, US.) article also being recently deleted. I was involved with defending that article and lost. I guess you should pretty much ignore my vote. However, I looked at the standards, and this article, and while I disagree with the standards, and that's perhaps a discussion for another day, I believe the standards call for a deletion. Nanabozho 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you disagree, why encourage this type of action?
  • Keep. Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture.[39] That's all the notability guideline requires. Hesperian 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without verifiable sources, this aticle should be deleted, unless good sources are found. How are we even supposed to know if the discography is real or made up without any sources. All I could find on google were self published sites like myspace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamchrisryan (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not just because I wrote the article. The original deletion nomination is frivilous: Here's the message left by the nominator on my talk page:
    "I have nominated the article, Misery (Australian band) for deletion from Wikipedia. You can access the process by visiting the article. I have done this not because I am deletionist or a senior writer for Wikipedia, or because I believe in destroying your work, as some do at Wikipedia.
    I am doing it for a variety of reasons:
    To learn how the deletion process works.
    As a reaction to the recent deletion of the Misery (band) article. (Based in Minneapolis, MN., US.) I admit this difficult to defend reason but offer up my wish to learn about the internal problems of Wikipedia by responding to the Minneapolis band’s deletion by attempting to delete the Australian band.
    As an attempt to review Wikipedia’s deletion policy as it relates to alternative and all bands.
    I am blogging on this situation. The blog is accessible through my user page.
    Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Nanabozho 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"}}[reply]
Articles should not be deleted just to prove a point. The band released four albums and existed for 15 years; unfortunately most of any reference material is offline and can't be linked but the discography is definitely not invented. --BrianFG 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::coming upon this by chance, i have warned the editor mentioned that this constitutes disruption. 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johnson Plaza

[edit]
Howard Johnson Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory or a travel guide. --Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music).  Satori Son 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably Abysmal

[edit]

Album for a band that doesn't even have its own article. Doesn't seem to be notable. SeizureDog 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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