Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 14

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 13 October 15 >

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. --Coredesat 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny pool

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

no references found or provided supporting notability, therefore WP:MADEUP NeilN 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge at an appropriate level of detail with Crokinole then delete, or redirect thereto. Crokinole (or as I learned it, croquinole) seems to be the same thing but better referenced. Accounting4Taste 00:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would say it closer resembles Shove ha'penny. See the image located at that article, and then modify it in your mind by imagining a diamond-shaped configuration of pegs on the board to serve as obstacles, and a hole punched in the end zone of each side of the board to serve as a goal to flick the penny into, and only one penny instead of a bunch of them, and a center peg that the penny is balanced on at the start of the game, and a low-slung outer wall on each side of the board to keep the pennies in bounds, and you have the general idea. Captain Zyrain 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though in this instance I agree that this should be deleted as something made up, please note that the original suggestion that "no references = made up" is as inaccurate as, say, saying "not red = green". Just because no references are provided doesn't automatically mean that something has simply been made up. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that MADEUP is the shortcut link wikipedia itself provides for Many editors, especially newer ones, are tempted to write articles about ideas which they or their friends have come up with, such as a new ball game invented in the park, a new word or phrase invented in the playground, or a new drinking game invented at a particularly memorable party. --NeilN 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that, and certainly many things for which references have not been provided may well be made up. But it is equally possible that the article is on a subject that is not widely documented online. I've written quite a few articles myself where I've looked for online sources that would provide suitable references and been unable to find anything suitable. There is no one-to-one relationship between items that are unreferenced and items made up by the writers - and it is that which I am commenting on as a flaw in your initial nomination. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was what I took issue with as well. I don't know about the history of the game, I just know that everyone in the shop classes at our school was assigned to make one of these boards and that people were always playing them during lunch break and between classes. Whether it exists outside of that school, I don't know, but I didn't make it up. Captain Zyrain 01:20, 15 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. --Coredesat 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantball

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

no references found or provided supporting notability, therefore WP:MADEUP NeilN 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not nonsense (as WP's definition is "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". It isn't incoherent in the slightest). - Rjd0060 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that MADEUP is the shortcut link wikipedia itself provides for Many editors, especially newer ones, are tempted to write articles about ideas which they or their friends have come up with, such as a new ball game invented in the park, a new word or phrase invented in the playground, or a new drinking game invented at a particularly memorable party. --NeilN 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The three refs I dug up did not take very long to find and I stopped looking once I got three hits. The interesting thing to note is that they're geographically distant from each other: Canada, Finland and the UK. If this was something made up at a party, etc, I don't know if there would be such wide dispersion. Yngvarr 09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To reiterate Rjd0060's comment above, Wikipedia's definition of "patent nonsense" is an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This is quite readable, not really incoherent at all. Yngvarr 10:56, 15 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 — Caknuck 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking care of your hamster

edit
Taking care of your hamster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like a paper someone wrote for an elementary school assignment. Full of POV and unlikely appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Rackabello 23:54, 14 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. --Coredesat 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Stars

edit
Shadow of the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and not notable. Nothing except for author and working title are apparently known. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 14 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 W.marsh per nominator's request at his talk page. -- JLaTondre 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk

edit
User:Playstationdude (edit | [[Talk:User:Playstationdude|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I need to have this page deleted so I can move another page there. We have already discussed it here at Warhawk revert war. Warhawk (disambiguation) has already been made with the exact same thing.

Comment: I think WP:CSD#G6 would apply here, rather than waste the time with the AfD. - Rjd0060 23:59, 14 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 deleted and redlink protected. El_C 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bao Nguyen

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

This article, which I have tried to mark for speedy deletion, is about a high school teacher. It makes no claims of notability, has no sources, and frankly I'm not sure if it's even a real person. Edward321 23:24, 14 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 — Caknuck 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

edit
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography of a living rabbi that does not appear especially notable. No reliable secondary sources have been put forward to establish notability or verify any of the information in the article beyond IMBD, a blog and a class listing. — Coren (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't seem notable (other than writing that NN book). - Rjd0060 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Snow Seems to have created enough synergy in his legal and religious areas of expertise that he seems to be regarded as notable by reliable sources in both worlds. See for example [5], [6] [7][8], plus publication of his book by Artscroll, a well-known religious publisher who vet the books they publish for religious reliability. While these sources aren't enough to verify a bio, they do tend to suggest that non-notability is by no means clear-cut, there may well be enough notability for a keep here. I intend to wait a few days and see how the sources measure up before reaching a conclusion. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep holds the Sydney M. Irmas Adjunct Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School -- an important law school. They probably know what they're doing fairly well, well enough to appoint only distinguished scholars. He has a number of publications in mainstream Jewish scholarship--I added them to the article. I consider hs other positions additional indication of notability.DGG (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, if left in would probably be an orphan article. MarsRover 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. The publications listed in the article all come from his page at Loyola. If this is an exhaustive list, it is not particularly impressive. Publishing is what academics do and there is no evidence that this stuff had an above average impact. --Crusio 09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article about a most notable rabbi that meets all the criteria of WP:BIO, WP:CITE and WP:N. A simple Google search for "Yitzchok Adlerstein" proves his fame beyond any shadow of a doubt. Thank you, IZAK 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The article has been fully upgraded and Wikified and now meets all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The nominator is requested to withdraw the nomination. IZAK 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment; The subject of a biography needs to have coverage from reliable sources. This means articles about that person, not simply mentioning them or quoting them. The sources added to the article are all either by rabbi Adlerstein, or simply mention him in passing (with, possibly, a quote); excepting a short bio blurb on the Ethics Center (which is not independent since the rabbi is associated with them). At this time, I do not beleive the guidelines on notability have been met, and I am loathe to interpret them liberally since this is a biography of a living person. — Coren (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with Coren that notability has not been established and maintain my delete vote above. --Crusio 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you seem to miss the point. The subject here is a rabbi (books, movies documentaries are not made about living rabbis, and Jews constitute atiny fraction of the world's poopulation) and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is more than notable with multiple reports about him in the non-Jewish mainstream press and media, the many books he has written that are widely read in the Orthodox community, this is far, far more than anything said about the vast majority of people in Category:Orthodox rabbis about whom very little is written and hundreds of them have articles in Wikipedia, since they are known and accepted in the Jewish Orthodox world. Generally, in Orthodx Judaism, biographies about rabbis are not written, especially if they are alive. One judges the rabbis by his own writings, teachings, publications, and influence as a teacher and leader. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic, which this is. Religious sources are considered reliable sources for religious matters, including whether a religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. Notability in the field is now in the article as well as in the general media, is the standard, and that is met here. Thank you, IZAK 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sorry, IZAK, but that doesn't hold. To be notable in an encyclopedic way, we need independent sources, as Coren explained. That really does not need to be a complete biography, movie, or documentary. If that were the standard, very few people would indeed make Wikipedia! You write that "One judges the rabbis by his own writings, teachings, publications, and influence as a teacher and leader." That would very much seem like original research to me, with the writer of the Wiki article deciding who is notable or not.... Without independent sources I will remain unconvinced. --Crusio 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, this article is bettter than most about rabbis because it cites media sources such as the New York Times and many others. That is not being made up by people on Wikipedia. Take a look at the hundreds of articles in Category:Orthodox rabbis do you propose to start a witch-hunt of rabbis on Wikipedia and to delete all of them based on what you claim now? What a joke. The point is that Wikipedia editors do play a role and they have sifted out and still sift out names that are non-notable by evaluating the rabbis' writings and standing in Orthodox Judaism, but in this case you are making a huge mistake. Guaranteed. IZAK 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the fact that other, equivalently lacking articles exist is not a sufficient rationale for keeping this one. If anything, it is a signal that perhaps those other articles should also be looked at. — Coren (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this convinces me that you do not understand how these biographies and articles are accumulated. Jews are a tiny people and the way their rabbis' standing is arrived at is by what they have written or what is written about them within Orthodox Judaism. They have notability as writers and scholars otherwise they would not be notable rabbis. You are using distorted thinking, that a rabbi is notable if wikipedia says he is so, however since rabbis are not judged by Wikipedia, one must assume that the standards they use are reliable. One would need a familiarity with Jewish texts and scholarship to know the real answer. You are obviously falling into the trap of Wikipedia:WikiLawyering: "...Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." The article fulfils. Note also: Wikipedia:Notability (people): "...biography guideline is not Wikipedia policy; rather, it is advice gathered from consensus via discussions and established practice..." and there are no guidelines yet specified for rabbis as far as I can tell. IZAK 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone proves the importance of this person by other means than stuffing the introduction with unsubstantiated terms like "important" or "leading exponent". For what I can read, he seems to be a noted only among a very particular and closed community. Rama 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be true of all Orthodox rabbis. IZAK 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "very particular and closed community" I do not mean orthodox judaism, but "the set of people who are interested in Yitzchok Adlerstein", the cardinality of which is, by your sources, three (two, excluding Yitzchok Adlerstein). That is what I call "very particular and closed community". Rama 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Rama: A simple Google search for "Yitzchok Adlerstein" proves his fame and notability beyond any shadow of a doubt, way beyond a closed community so I don't know what you are talking about. This is not about a rabbi hiding in some far-off shtetl, he is about as famous and notable as any rabbi can get in an open far-flung Jewish Orthodox community in the USA. Probably every Orthodox Jew who reads Jewish books and magazines in English knows of him. This is proven with all the citations in the article. We can't create rabbis that don't exist because this is what they are. I don't know what you or any of the others here voting to delete are thinking. If the rabbi was indeed a minor figure I would vote to delete, but his writings and his name are so oft-used and widespread that he is simply too notable in this case. IZAK 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Ridernyc 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHe has become notable not just because of his works and teachings but also his declarations, which have been considered too controversial and misoginous by many. The article should stay whether we like him or not, I think. --JewBask 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Director of Interfaith Institute at the Simon Weisenthal center should be enough notwithstanding any other comments. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) where an academic (and being the chair at a university qualifies one as an academic) who is regularly quoted is considered notable. Thus, the fact that this person is regularly quoted is a demonstration of notability in its own right as well. Avi 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that the article fails to give convincing example of the regular quotes that you mention. I do not doubt their existence, but it'd be better to show them. Rama 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar links -- Avi 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And a grand total of 9 (nine!) "hits" on Google Scholar precisely prove what??? --Crusio 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's something! 9 hits, of which one is a duplicate (Presbyterians, Jews AND Divestment), five in fact seem to fail to cite Adlerstein alltogether [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. [14] makes a en passant mention of Alderstein. Two can't be verified. I really wish I could say I'm impressed. Rama 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This tendency of AfD nominating without doing minimal due diligence of fact checking is quite worrisome. Yes, at the moment of nomination the article could have raised doubts, but doing brief google search and then tagging with {{notability}} would have been quite enough for remedy. `'Míkka 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be direct, but a brief Google search gives the impression that this person is an inflammatory blogger. Which is not enough to warrant notability. So a brief Google search is not enough. Rama 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me give an small advice in "google-for-wikipedia" techniques: in the search result, when you see an url which even remotely resembles a blog or free hosting site or the likes, you just don't open the link. This is simply waste of your time: such references are invalid for wikipedia. Following this simple rule, you will be surprized how fast you will find reliable sources, if any, even if the signal-to-noise ratio is 1:100 `'Míkka 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, reliable sources. Such as... ? I'm really astonished how everybody here talks and talks and talks about sources, yet we don't see any. I they are really so easy to find, we should be buried under these by now. Rama 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree completely with Rama. I am perfectly willing to believe that this person is notable. However, notwithstanding from the (unsubstantiated) assertions on this page I have not seen any direct evidence yet. People telling us "this person is notable" is not really the kind of evidence an encyclopedia needs. --Crusio 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His books have been published, he is a chair in a university. What more do you want? Yossiea (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about some verifiable independent sources?? I know too many university chairs that are not notable, or published books that had no impact whatsoever, to be impressed by those facts alone. Show me verifiable evidence of notability and I'll change my vote. Up till now, I haven't seen anything like that. --Crusio 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you won't be satisfied with anything. The fact alone that he writes for the JO and JA should be notable enough. Add in that he was a founding trustee for the AJOP, is currently a chair at a "real" university, and he is a blogger (not just an ordinary blogger, but a Rabbi who blogs is indeed notable in many Orthodox circles.) Yossiea (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Crusio won't be satisfied with anything, more like anything won't satisfy him. "Blogger" ? excuse me ? Rama 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sometimes being a blogger is noteworthy. But keep in mind, this is not his only claim to fame. He works for the Weisenthal Center, he has a chair at Loyola, he has published books, he writes for two mouthpiece magazines. I don't see the claim of non-notability. Yossiea (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then prove it ! Show sources ! Rama 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Yossiea (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:V emphasizes peer review. This individual has two sets of peers: academic peers and religious peers. He is entitled to an article if notable among either set, even if neither tells us much about his childhood or other details of his personal life. Reliable sources among experts in the field, not solely among mainstream media, determine notability here. Otherwise we'd have to delete virtually all articles on philosophers, scientists, and many other categories, whose mainstream media coverage is also limited. For this reason, I agree with IZAK's basic point that recognized peer-reviewed religious sources are reliable for determining an individual's notability within notable organized religions. That said, sources that are reliable in the field do need to be shown. --Shirahadasha 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independently notable. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable, article was improved. Curious the amount of effort being made here, there are so many other less notable people in WP and deleting this person does not provide an improvement of WP. --Shuki 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Until reliable sources are provided for notibility in either the academic or religious field. If such sources are provided, then Keep. As per Shirahadasha's Comment of 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC), -- Nahum 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with arguments above finding the subject notable, after the article has been expanded. -- Dauster 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see that the common thread among those petitioning for the deletion of the article is a lack of sources. Here are a few interesting web search results. [15] - an article about Rabbi Adlerstein in the "largest Muslim newspaper in California", [16], [17] - search Adlerstein on the page and see his radio program mentioned, [18] - he is a chairman on the Rabbinical Council of California's Beit Din (Jewish Court system), [19] - another LA Times article. Doing a web search for rabbi adlerstein with the criteria -blog & -"cross-currents" still yields a significant number hits. The number of times he is quoted in publications like the LA Times, the Jewish Journal, etc. signify that he is a "go to guy" for opinions and statements regarding modern Orthodox Jewery. I maintain that Rabbi Adlerstein is in fact notable and the article should be kept. Bightme 99 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    — Bightme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Coren (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A google news search for yitzchak adlerstein [20] or yitzchok adlerstein [21] (note the difference in spelling of first name) - both yield more than 70 results. Bightme 99 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep I think at this point there are enough sources and content to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional sources [22] - over 60 LA Times articles where Rabbi Adlerstein is quoted, [23] - more NY Times articles quoting or about Rabbi Adlerstein, [24] - another 11 articles from the Jerusalem Post, [25] - Article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, [26] - 20/20 article quoting (see page 2), [27] - Rabbi Adlerstein's name is not mentioned, but he appears in the episode. [28] Although he is uncredited, he appeared in "Crown Heights" as a Hasidic rabbi interviewee. --Bightme 99 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    Comment I have been looking at the resources that are listed above. Unfortunately, many newspaper articles cannot be accessed (only for a fee). Those that can be accessed only mention Adlerstein in passing ("friend of" and such). There is one opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, bt from the part that is accessible it cannot be seen whether that is an invited opinion piece (which would be a sure sign of notability) or a letter to the editor (which would not be a sign of notability). I am impressed by the number of people that are expressing their convictions here that Adlerstein is notable. With so many motivated people, it should not be too diificult to find "reliable secondary sources have been put forward to establish notability or verify", as the nomination states? As far as I am concerned, just one would be enough. --Crusio 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some op-ed pieces: [29], [30], [31], and why not just check out [32] for a whole list of op-ed pieces? --Bightme 99 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
These are by Adlerstein! We want secondary sources. Rama 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See 18-24 for sources about Rabbi Adlerstein and 25-28 for sources by Rabbi Adlerstein. I provided the latter sources in response to Crusio's request for opinion pieces by Rabbi Adlerstein. To make a long story short, I don't think even you, Rama, can argue at this point that Rabbi Adlerstein is not notable. More than 140 news articles come up on a google news search. Numerous articles written by him, about him, or just quoting him have been linked above. He has appeared in several films (as testified by IMDB). He's published a book by the number one Jewish Orthodox publisher, Artscroll. He serves on the editorial panel of "The Torah with Ramban's Commentary" - also by Artscroll/Mesorah Publications. I'm sorry that many of the articles are archived and require a fee to read the full text, but that is no reason to delete. The articles are there ready to be verified. He was invited to New York to film an episode of 20/20 - isn't that enough? --Bightme 99 08:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
No. I am sorry, but going to television does not automatically make you encyclopedic.
And for the record, I am not saying that this Alderstein person is not notable. I don't know, and frankly, I couldn't care less. What I care about, on the other hand, is providing sources. And on this respect, I have found the most surprising lack of critical distance in choosing these - article have been mentioned that fail to mention Alderstein at all:
  • [33] no mention
  • [34] unreadable
  • ten articles: one ib by Alderstein, and the others do not mention him in their abstract, which is the only part freely available. Besides the question of whether something you can't see can be considered to be a source, if these articles were about the man, wouldn't they mention his name in the abstract ?
What you're doing is throw google-generated links without even reading the fringing things!
Like Crusio, I find the [claims that the guy is OBVIOUSLY notable]/[sources backing the point] ratio astronomical. This is really self-defeating, because if the notability of someone is clear, it's really easy to convince me of it. Rama 09:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, what are your objections really? Do you want a book to have been written about Rabbi Adlerstein? That does not happen in the world of Orthodox Judaism until the rabbis die and then only a select few get written up and then it's usually a hagiography. Here you have the case of a rabbi who is in the public spotlight. His every appearance and official act recorded on the web almost. Who has prestigious positions in the worlds of Orthodox Judaism, Jewish education, secular Jewish communal life, and in acedemia, who also writes for both the widest range of Jewish media and is quoted as a spokesperson for a moderate brand of Orthodox Judaism in the secular mass media, who has published streams of articles and a book, who has taken a public stand on controversial issues and has been reported on TV for this and for interviews, all documented, sourced, reliable, verifiable, and yet you object that the "magic bullet" (or is it the poison pen) has not been found. Would a slash and burn book by an enemy make you happy? This rabbi, in spite of his vast public exposure really has no enemies and essentially while many people who have met him and read his articles and whatever else he puts out may disagree with him, they have not created alternate books, media and reources to smack him down and that this is evidently what you are looking for. So quit looking for a "smoking gun" this is not Watergate, you are not reporters, and Rabbi Adlerstein is definitely not Nixon. IZAK 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objections are that for now, I have seen neither scholar nor religious notable sources. You make it sound that because he is an Orthodox Jew, we should accept sources like blog entries. While I am very willing to take specificities of the community into account, I will not blind myself into pretending that en passant mentions in footnotes and editorials by the man himself are sufficient.
And contrarliy to what you insinuate, I do not dislike Adlerstein or seek to denigrate him. I'm just waiting to see reliable sources acertaining his notability. Your repeated statements that the man is notable, given your constant failure to provide reliable sources, puzzle me. Rama 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Rama: You are twisting my words into things I did not mean and certainly did not say. Point number one, nowhere in the main body of the article, which I re-wrote very carefully from its first posting, did I use or mention blogs by either Adlerstein or anyone else. Someone added that in addition to all his other positions and activities Adlerstein has time to run a very prestigious blog where he basically acts as a rabbi and gives out his well-reasoned opinions. What's wrong with that? It does not "detract" from anything as you keep implying it does. There are many (less?) prestigious bloggers that get an honorable mention on Wikipedia, indeed there is an entire Category:Bloggers (and Adlerstien is not even in it) and I wonder how many of them are sourced the way you would like Adlerstien to be?, and surely not all of them can match up to Matt Drudge. Rabbis are a lot more "boring" and speak about things like morality, God, and Torah, and the commandments. So quit saying that anyone thinks that blogs are ok as sources, because we know it ain't so. Secondly, there are several sources, citations and links in the article that present the reliance upon Adlerstein in the general media, be it The New York Times, on mainstream TV and certainly in the dozens of publications that he does not run or own but that welcome his many writings, all of which are valid sources. Finally, I do not say that you dislike Adlerstein personally, but I do say that by now you are treating this process like a fox hunt (I have already compared it to a witch-hunt and to Watergate, so I am running out of analogies of how to illustrate this to you and Corey at this time.) Sincerely, IZAK 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your numerous mentions of ...-hunt, though I've not understood them. The only thing that I am looking for is reliable sources. So what are you implying with you witch-hunting comparison ? That reliable sources are not only yet to be found, but that they are a vain quest alltogether ? Rama 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, your are twisting my words, I am not saying that looking for reliable sources is a "____-hunt" of any kind. Adlerstein's notability as a rabbi is established by all the sources cited in the article. What I am saying is that you have latched onto the article in the vain attempt to prove that this rabbi is not notable by your uncalled for and ongoing Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, so to repeat: "...Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." Thanks again, IZAK 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. -- Olve 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep most concerns expressed are already addressed in the now updated version--יודל 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rama, I appreciate your objective approach to this debate. However, you haven't acknowledged many of the sources cited here in this debate or responded as to why they do not demonstrate notability. Here is a summary of the most notable links and why they are important. Please let me know why these are insufficient.
  • [35] - This is an article in InFocus "The largest Muslim newspaper in California." Let me stress that this is an article about an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in a Muslim paper. In and of itself, this is notable.
  • [36] - Rabbi Adlerstein has his own radio program.
  • [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] - a partial list of LA Times articles which either mention, quote or are about Rabbi Adlerstein. I only linked those articles in which his name appears in the free "abstract" portion of the article. There are many many more (as a search of the LA Times online archive will reveal).
  • [45], [46] (page two), [47] - New York Times articles which directly quote Rabbi Adlerstein.
  • [48] - This 20/20 article directly quotes Rabbi Adlerstein. This time I linked directly to page 2 where his name appears.
  • [49] - note that this page is the results of a search for "Adlerstein". I know he was quoted in the article because I've seen it. Why not go directly to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazzette[50] website and seach yourself?
  • Rabbi Adlerstein is a prolific writer in such mainstay Jewish publications as the Jewish Action and the Jewish Observer. These are like the LA Times and the NY Times of American Orthodox Jewery. They may not mean much to you, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an Orthodox Jew who hasn't read them.
  • IMDB entries confirm that Rabbi Adlerstein has appeared in and consulted for several motion pictures. Again, allow me to stress that this is notable simply because he is an Orthodox Rabbi.
  • He was a founding trustee of AJOP (Association for Jewish Outreach Programs). You may contact them via their website[51] to confirm this.
  • I understand that to you, Rama, founding a blog is no big deal. But an Orthodox Rabbi founding a blog is a bit like an Amish leader re-inventing the generator. Orthodox Jews shy away from the internet and it's often banned in many communities.
All in all, although you may not be thrilled with some of the particular sources cited here, you must admit that the sum total (including all that's mentioned in the actual entry) prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Rabbi Adlerstein is well-known, both in the Orthodox world and the world at large, including the Muslim and Christian worlds. This would make anyone notable, but the fact that he's an Orthodox Rabbi on top of everything else really clinches the deal. I look forward to your comments. --Bightme 99
  • Comment; I cannot help but notice, despite the very large number of edits to the article, that there is still not a single reliable source. (And please, before venting on how the sources are "Obviously" reliable, take a few minutes to read the guideline to see what "reliable source" means). Self-published articles, trivial en-passant mentions, one-liner quotes and blog entries do not qualify. At this point, the only argument for notabiliy set forward sums up to "he is a Jewish Orthodox rabi so the rules applied to everyone else do not apply to him because he's obviously notable and there is no need to source that".

    I see a lot of "sources", none of which establish notability, even in the aggregate. Many of the so-called sources do not even mention the rabbi! Or are written by him. I see a lot of special pleading, and a lot of "but he's an Orthodox Rabbi". I see a lot of accusations of bad faith, and a lot of cries of wikilawyering.

    Orthodox Rabbis are not automatically notable. Whether the topic of an article is an Orthodox Rabbi or a Buddhist dancer, the criterion are and MUST be the same. — Coren (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Coren, you are being too harsh and pedantic. No-one is trying to pull a fast one here and no-one is asking for special treatment in any way. But a number of editors are bringing solid evidence of citations and sources that you are choosing to dismiss with the wave of a cyber hand. Nobody said that "Orthodox rabbis are automatically notable" so please do not insult the intelligence and skills of the Judaic editors. Over the years many a non-notable Orthodox rabbi has had his biography deleted on Wikipedia and I have done so myself. So there is no proof that Orthodox rabbis get a "free pass" on Wikipedia, on the contrary they are judged very carefully based on knowldge of who is truly notable. The way Orthodox rabbis are notable is through their publications and recorded leadership. Sometimes it's found in books, and sometimes there are articles and other writings usually within Judaism and sometimes in the world at large, to back it up. So do not claim what is not being said by anyone here please. Why not read what is stated on Wikipedia:Reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source? that states inter alia: "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Portions of this page use "source" exclusively in the first sense for the sake of clarity, but that does not limit the scope of this guideline...In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...Material from reliable non-academic publications may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context..." and in the case of Adlerstein all these requirements are met. See also the important recent comments added above by User:Bightme99. Thanks again, IZAK 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coren, would you please address my previous comment where I've outlined a list of sources for notability? Allow me to remind Coren, Rama & Crusio of Wikipedia's guide to notability:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

      • The number of sources cited by myself and others certainly constitute significant coverage.
      • The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Jewish Action, Jewish Observer, InFocus, 20/20 all certainly contitute reliable sources
      • The LA Times, NY Times and InFocus all certainly must be considered independant of the subject.
What more is there to discuss? The entry clearly meets (and possibly exceeds) Wikipedia's guidelines for

notability. 'Nuff said.--Bightme 99 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you feel like quoting, how about "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail"? (emphasis mine) Address the subject directly. Articles, notes, papers about the subject, which in this case would be rabbi Adlerstein. I will be happy with one such source. — Coren (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics):

    An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

  • Keep Sufficiently sourced, demonstrates clear notability. --Dweller 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as evidenced by the abundance of sources. --MPerel 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Many of his descriptions of himself are his own peacock words. He teaches a single class on Judaism at the law school as a visiting adjunct and he calls himself a Professor even w/o an advanced degres. The citations given in the entry are from his OWN blog where he gives his opinions and then other blogs and even newspapers pick it up from his self promotion. His book and articles are self-published. And like our debate over Zvi Block we can start the debate of COI of wiki editors. This entry itself is another act of his peacock self-aggrandizements. As notes above, a few citations in local papers is not enough, especially from someone whose main job is connected to the media machine of the Simon Wiesenthal center.It is unfortunate that this debate has gotten so personal on all sides.--Jayrav 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayrav - 1. You assert that the descriptions of Rabbi Adlerstein are "his own peacock words." What is this based on? I know that he didn't write them so I wonder where you got this impression?
2. The newspaper quotes are from direct interviews with Rabbi Adlerstein, not merely "picked off his blog." This is verifiable - you are welcome to contact the authors of the articles.
3. His book is published by Artscroll, not self-published as you mistakenly stated. Artscroll is THE primiere Orthodox Jewish publisher.
4. Rabbi Adlerstein did not initiate, write or contribute to this entry or its subsequent debate. How can you assert that it is "another act of his peacock self-aggrandizements?" By making such statements you take this debate to a personal level...it is a personal attack on Rabbi Adlerstein. No other entry on this debate page personally attached the Rabbi - you are the first to do so.
5. "A few citations in local papers" would not be enough. However, the NY Times & LA Times can hardly be described as "local papers." Your points are unfounded and clearly do not comply with Neutral Point of View or Civility.--Bightme 99 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bightme- I assume that you are in good faith, but the fact that your only editing is on this article and that you are playing advocate leads to suspect COI. If Izak and Shirahadasha were going to debate this with outside input, then I could live with it. But I find the entire tone of this debate to be advocacy and without a sense that almost any Rabbi has newspaper quotes at this point. At this point in time, almost any writer, VP of a company or clergy has newspaper entries but that does not mean they are notable. Bightme, please back off for a day or two and let some of the others (I will exclude myself) evaluate the evidence. --Jayrav 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If his thoughts, writings, and life story have been picked up sufficiently by third-party reliable sources, it simply isn't the business of Wikipedia to inquire whether this is due to their merits or to marketing strategy. Notability is not a moral judgment. I would stick to arguments about whether there are or are not sufficient sources of sufficient reliability and scope and not let issues of motivation get involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:20, 18 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. --Coredesat 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Lake Memorial Stadium

edit
Avon Lake Memorial Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

High school stadium with no claim to notability. (I might have recommended merge, but the article is currently devoid of actual content that could be merged). — Coren (talk) 22:53, 14 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. --Coredesat 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Shocktober

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

advertisement, mainly consists of a list of every Nickelodeon Halloween special ever made Caldorwards4 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is it advertisment, its a nick article Wikialexdx 5:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

if you want to delete it, fine delete it, its a block on nickeldeon thats annual. Wikialexdx 7:30, 14 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 speedily deleted as A7 by Number 57. --Coredesat 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Hunt Swim Team

edit
Fox Hunt Swim Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable local youth swim team Drdisque 22:27, 14 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. I note that those supporting deletion did so before the additions by Thomjakobsen.--Kubigula (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break machine

edit
Break machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it is neither original research nor unverifable, yet can be made into a decent stub. Bearian 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakalo

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

Currently the article is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I attempted to find even some cursory source material in an effort to expand on this topic, but was unable to find almost anything but Wikipedia mirrors. This probably isn't a hoax, considering there are news archives with mentions of the animal, but it obviously never caught on enough to maintain notability. A lack of sources to be used for verification and a doubtful notability in modern agriculture leads me to think this should simply be deleted. VanTucky Talk 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki- to Wiktionary TonyBallioni 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • TW: Per above - Rjd0060 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I look in google news archives I find a 1926 source which says "The meat of yakalos is said to be almost Identical with beef aside from being finer grained. The animals are hardy, can forage for themselves" and a 1975 source with someone saying "one disadvantage of cross-bred Yak cattle was that They were not very large beasts" The idea that notability has to be "maintained" is yakalo excrement, likewise the idea that wikipedia is an encylopedia only of modern agriculture. Who are you people. Kappa 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what exactly I did to engender such a vicious response, but it is quite obivous to me that a subject that garners zilch in terms of significant coverage is non-notable. A few sentences in early 20th century news rags is not notability.What I meant by the "maintained" phrase is that, according to the source material available, the subject may have been notable for a brief moment in time, but certainly isn't by Wikipedia standards. VanTucky Talk 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You use Words like "news rags" and "notable for a brief moment in time but not by wikipedia standard" and you don't expect to be hated by someone who wants to be able to learn more about these things but can't? Kappa 14:20, 15 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. --Coredesat 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Abbas Abdallah Aldamen

edit
Yasmin Abbas Abdallah Aldamen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published writer who fails WP:BIO. The product of a single purpose account, it is largely lifted from the author biography provided at Xlibris. Victoriagirl 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it fails WP:BK and is little more than a copy of text provided at the novel's Xlibris page :

The Laws of the Lost Era‎ (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 Delete. Having read the arguments put forward by the two most heavily involved parties, Butterfly0fdoom (talk · contribs) and Rsrikanth05 (talk · contribs), I took the decision to delete the article. My basis for this was primarily on the non-notability of the article's subject, which was judged according to Wikipedia's Notability Guideline.

However, I sympathise with the articles creator; Wikipedia does, in no way, aim to eliminate every article on non-Apple MP3 players - far from it. Nevertheless, Notability must be establised through reliable sources, unless the general standards of the encyclopedia should fall.

Whilst this article must not be re-created unless it satisfied Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines, particularly such key ones as WP:N and WP:RELY, I would invite the article's original author to take the article's text, and develop it with reliable, third-party sources (in accordance with WP:RELY), in order for us to assert that it meets Wikipedia's basic article standards on Notability. Rsrikanth05, if you wish to contact me for the article's content, feel free to email me using the details located here. Kind regards, Anthøny ん 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcend T.sonic

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

The person that created the article (who is also the primary editor of the article) has failed to wikify his article and address the notability of the product he has created an article for. Butterfly0fdoom 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a few more days, as my internet is problematic, I'll add more content, and try my best to wikify the article. --Rsrikanth05 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is notability. You've failed to address that issue. And I doubt there will be a way you can address that issue. Butterfly0fdoom 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with merging it into Transcend, but doing so would imply that details on Transcend's other products should be added to the article, as well, then. Butterfly0fdoom 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are against it, after all it is another PMP like the Zen, iPod or Zune, infact, it has a few more functions and features, as compared to the others. Also, I'll be glad to expand the Transcend Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) --Rsrikanth05 08:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) What do I need to do in order to make it natable? I know it can be made notable. --Rsrikanth05 08:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Guys, please give me a a few more days, as I have found plaaces which can be used for notability.--Rsrikanth05 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does it bring anything new to the table? Is it innovative in any aspect? The Walkman, Zen, Sansa, Rio, and iPod lines are all notable in that, not only are they prominent in society (not necessarily popular, but prominent in that they, regardless of sales, are [or were, in the case of Rio] prominent in the social consciousness). They all had their own innovations. What about the Transcend? Does it have any defining characteristics? Does it have any outstanding innovations? You can't make a product notable, only the producer and the consumers can. Butterfly0fdoom 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is innovative, it is the first mp3 player with a trackwheel. Unless you think that is stupid. The iPod was NOT the first PMP. Also, I am a consumer, who can make the product notable. You say it is not popular, thus it should be deleted. The notabilty article states nothing about popularity. --Rsrikanth05 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stated that popularity doesn't equate to notability. The first MP3 player (or the second one, even) wasn't popular, but both were notable, one for being the first, the second for having a lawsuit against it that pretty much made the MP3 player industry the way it is now a possibility. Creative's Nomad line was one of the more proliferating lines of MP3 players and helped bring such devices into the public consciousness. SanDisk's Sansa line was notable for accelerating the flash memory capacity war and the price war, due to SanDisk's position as a flash drive producer, giving them access to a hell of a lot of flash memory at cheap. Apple's iPod line is notable for its size, then its capacities, and also for its wheel-based interface. Diamond's Rio line was notable for the immense varieties of file formats it supported. What innovation does the Transcend have? Trackwheel? If you mean like a jog wheel on the side of the player, Creative's original Nomad Zen line used such track wheels. Or do you mean a circular, static-sensitive interface on the front of the device like the iPod has been using since 2002? Butterfly0fdoom 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Till you came along, no one said anything about deleting the article. Also take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PortableApps.com --Rsrikanth05 10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with this? Portableapps.com is a notable website for its purpose. Yet, not being a developer, I didn't know it existed. But after reading the article, I know it exists and why it's notable. The Transcend T.sonic article doesn't explain how/why it's notable and you've failed to establish any notability, either. Butterfly0fdoom 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see here: Talk:Transcend T.sonic#Tagged. If I didn't tag it for deletion, someone else would have. By the way, a product reviewed by C.net doesn't mean it's notable. They'll review most anything that the manufacturer sends them. The reviewing process has nothing to do with notability (unless like that one Coby player, it gets the worst rating ever).

Has any PMP ad a baery life of longer an 18 ours? Een e ipod does no, well inase you did no know, http://techbloggin.com/category/tsonic840/ Hae a look --Rsrikanth05 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ipod-classic-nano-batteries-beat-apple-claims/11412 40 hours rated, 58 hours actual for a 160 classic. 24 rated and 30 actual for a nano. Butterfly0fdoom 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The T.sonic 840 at full volume, without the screensaver gives one 30 hours, the iPod gives only at 50% volume. Why are you agianst the T.sonic anyway? You do not like it, then ignore it. --09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Also your link was from an Apple fan site, and all Apple fan sites over-rate the iPod for what it is. It lacks loads of features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Alos, David tagged the article for Reference, not natabilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you want to. Go ahead, i have a copy of the source anyway. I'll add the exact same details on to the Transcend page. --Rsrikanth05 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Also, this might not be notable to you, but the T.sonic also, acts as a PC lock, and boot device, you can lock your PC with it,a dn also boot your PC from it. --Rsrikanth05 05:29, 21 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. Neil ☎ 09:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banatians

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

A biased article and a neologism as well (when saying that it refers to Slavic population as well). I don't see a point of having an article about this. bogdan 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Banat. This does seem like a neologism, but I can certainly see people searching for it, and there is some content that could be added to the main article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know if it is really a NEO (would Michigander be a NEO too?). Anyways, it is a biased article, and the subject is already well covered in Banat Bulgarians. - Rjd0060 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A better example would be:
    "The Texans are the people of Texas. Although the term aplies to all of its inhabitants, it could primarily refer to its Spanish population."
    "Throughout the late Middle Ages to modern times the Spanish Texans kept their identity as Native Americans."
NO, it wudn't - there never were Texasians, there are BANATIANS, who have been heavily opresed under expansionism of neighboring nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BanatFree (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complete lie. Eastern half of Banat had always been ethnically Romanian, and Western Serbian, and so after the dissolution of Austrian-Hungarian Empire it was divided between Serbia and Romania, with active participation of local Serbs and Romanians and their political leaders. The only 'idiot' here is you, if you don't know that one of the greatest "oppressors" of "Banatians" was Mihajlo Pupin a "Banatian" himself, one of the greatest world scientists of modern era. For Christ's sake, Banat as Serbian-populated part of civilized Austrian Empire has been the center of Serbian national idea, as Serbia was occupied by Ottoman Empire. Complete rubbish. Marechiel 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You idiot Illyrians is name for Slavs in these regions in new times. And we are NOT Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BanatFree (talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for fringe theories. Please see: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The mainstream scientific view is that Illyrians have nothing to do with Slavs. bogdan 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FOr god's sake no one is claiming were illyrians - theres no that theory. Im not saying that no one is. Just in historical hungarian sources, Slavs were called Illyrians, and just that - especially during the Illyrian age, when the language spoken was "Illyrian". It has nothing to do with ilyrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BanatFree (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per bogdan's Texans.--Victor falk 08:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • not delete. Why destroy culture of a peple?
  • Delete: It's neither a culture nor a people, but BanatFree's humorless joke, parody, fiction or whatever. As Rjd0060 cleverly noticed, the article makes sense as much as the article about Texans or New-Yorkers. The vocabulary he uses is highly characteristic for marginal and extremist NGO Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts of Montenegro which, in order to prove non-Serbian origin of Montenegrins, denies Serbdom of Serbs almost everywhere: in Croatia, Bosnia and parts of Serbia, so I have reasons to believe that BanatFree is actually not a Serb from Banat at all, but a Montenegrin from Montenegro. The ideas presented in his agenda do not exist anywhere, but are only a copy from a satirical text published on several Serbian fora about several parts of Serbia presented as 'non-Serbian' using the erroneous argumentation of the mentioned "Academy". I must say that I'm surprised that someone actually tried to push those 'spoof-teories' written as a joke and parody as something serious. How can one state that this border territory between Serbia and Romania was populated with some fictional "Slavs" and "Vlachs", while it is known that the only Slavs of the region were Serbs, and the only Romance (Vlach) nation were Romanians. As if someone tried to present Berlin as a city populated with some fictional Germanic people that aren't Germans. The term 'Banatian' doesn't even exist separately from other 20-or-so regions of Serbia. The history of Banat is the history of local Romanians and Serbs within Austrian Empire an nothing more. I'm from Banat, and this faker isn't. Marechiel 09:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: On the other hand, BanatFree displays tragic lack of knowledge about historical facts. Serbs of Banat were never called with Illyrian name prior to recognition of Serbian nation in Austrian Empire under that name in 18th century. In the original documents in Austrian Empire, published both in German/Latin and Slavonic, it can be seen that the Illyrian name was translated into Slavonic as Serbian. Serbian schools and institutions in all Austria were officially called Illyrian, for instance the Illyrian Court Office in Vienna, a Serbian body entitled to monitor possible violation of Serbian privileges and national rights in Austria. All that, and that Banat got its name only in 18th century, and that it was prior to that called Rascia (Serbia) - this fake "Banatian" BanatFree doesn't even know. Marechiel 09:27, 17 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. --Coredesat 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage Pass (Bootlegs & B-Sides)

edit
Backstage Pass (Bootlegs & B-Sides) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape, prod tag removed. Speciate 21:19, 14 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. --Coredesat 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Abel (Tekken)

edit
Doctor Abel (Tekken) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:DEL#REASON ("Reasons for deletion include … subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline"), no reliable sources can be found to prove notability for this non-notable character. Seraphim Whipp 21:00, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeo Barrios

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

Vanity spam, in all likelihood. Unreferenced bio of a musician whose Google returns are the article in question and a myspace page. Nothing on All Music Guide. Entirely the work of one redlink author who one must suspect is the subject. A Traintalk 20:43, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the panda syndicate

edit
Fight the panda syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Emergent" says it all. Not notable, and unsourced to boot. — Coren (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, they have a cool logo at fightthepandasyndicate.com :) David Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BibleTime

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

Non-notable software with no reliable sources - at best it should be merged with The Sword Project similar to de:The Sword Project, since it's merely a non-notable front-end. Halo 20:07, 14 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. @pple complain 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky

edit
Merle Terlesky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Notability/vanity. I can find no record of Mr. Terlesky holding public office. I can find no biographical information about him except pages written by him or unsourced speculation by those who do not like him. six.oh.six 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability, just needs to be sourced. There is tons of stuff if you search around, he also has a autobiography published. Ran for political/public office. He appeared on TV shows as well. --Mista-X 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version that needs to be sourced. If you look at it, it may change your mind on the AFD. What has happened here is that Merle (and/or someone sympathetic to him) is trying to cover up some of the dumber things he has done in the past. --Mista-X 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the information that was removed from the article. Some of it should be restored pending the keep of this article. - Rjd0060 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite what some may think, notability must be verified with reliable sources, or else it doesn't exist. No sources, no notability. Period. Change to Keep, as more than sufficient sourcing has been acquired. VanTucky Talk 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article itself, as it stands at the moment, would probably qualify for speedy deletion as (nocontext), it is the slightest of stubs. And everything I read about this guy makes me certain that I never want to be anywhere near him. But I've found a number of sources that I consider to be arm's-length and third-party that are about this individual. For instance, according to this link, the editor of the Kamloops Daily News (Kamloops is the fourth-largest city in British Columbia) published an editorial expose on him, and I quote her: "Terlesky "has managed to get himself in the paper so many times, the stack of stories totals about two inches"." "Ranting at opponents won’t attract many allies to the cause. Susan Duncan, Kamloops Daily News, December 1, 2001." There's also this link and, from a major Calgary newspaper, this one. I don't like what I've seen of his views or his tactics, but I have to say he's notable. Accounting4Taste 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the citations I noted above to the article. It's still pretty much a stub, but you get the flavour of the man's "societal contributions". Accounting4Taste 00:23, 15 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. W.marsh 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting

edit
Proportional approval voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Original research. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. Yellowbeard 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Blueboy96 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The lack of references and outside links indicate a lack of notability. I tried a search too, came up with zippo. - Rjd0060 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as quite notable and sourceable, see, e.g., Ghits: [56] and from my own memory, was championed by Anita Hill. I was tempted to close this debate myself with a keep, except for WP:AGF. Bearian 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you thinking of Lani Guinier? --Groggy Dice T | C 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Anita Hill nor Lani Guinier ever promoted this election method. Yellowbeard 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A real theoretical system. It has a couple google scholar hits in reliable sources. GRBerry 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I couldn't find a single reliable source. All Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors or mailing lists. Yellowbeard 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Google scholar is not Google. Google is not google scholar. You didn't look in the place I said to. For an example, see http://www.math.wisc.edu/~kach/mathematics/gpslogic/voting.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) (access permissions required, so alternatively google cache thereof in html) or http://www.iiia.csic.es/People/enric/papers/egov.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) or google cache therof in html). There are lots of limited preview Google book results. If you can't find sources for this, it is because you aren't trying. GRBerry 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but there is not a single Google book result. You only forgot the quotation marks. Yellowbeard 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other two links contain only verbatim excerpts from the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, it becomes more and more popular to copy large verbatim excerpts from randomly chosen Wikipedia articles and to insert them in one's own paper to bloat it. I wouldn't call such papers "reliable". Yellowbeard 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. There are zero Google book results. And all Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors or mailing lists. It is quite obvious that this article is original research. Yellowbeard 11:14, 21 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. --Coredesat 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outcast (street gang)

edit
Outcast (street gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to spring completely from the imagination of its author. It's completely without sources and it reads like make-belief nonsense. Note especially, the last section of the article, which links it to another article of the same author, of which he admits is completely OR (see this Afd). I am under the impression that we're dealing with a user who likes to create hoax articles here. Atlan (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's indeed original research, but no hoax. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Dominion, another article for deletion from the same author. He explains himself and effectively decides the AfD outcome. --Nehwyn 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think it's a hoax. The way he links his occult organization with a street gang from Texas, both of which no one has ever heard of and have no sources, is too much of a coincidence.--Atlan (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing research for a novel I'm working on as the guy above noted. I'm sorry that I've pissed you guys off that was not the intention here. As for this being a hoax it's not, You can call the admin of North Mesquite High School she can verify the exsistence of this gang as can the SRO (school Resorce Officer) his name is Mark White. TXguy2608 1:02, 15 October 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Tour

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

Promotional page on a non-notable sporting event. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thistle Tour

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

Promotional article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 14 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 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dillard Drive Middle School

edit
Dillard Drive Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school and no reliable sources found to assert notability. Tomj 19:15, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcingizer

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

A neologism. Three ghits[59]. Malcolmxl5 19:04, 14 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. Sandahl 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Alder

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

Danny Alder is an actor who has appeared in theatre, TV and film. However, his work appears not to be of significance or importance except possibly the leading role that in an independent horror film that has not been released. He had a minor role in one episode of Eastenders. Here is his IMDB page. A google search[60] turns up very little in the way of reliable sources; here is a single independent review of his work as a comedian. He has no coverage in UK national media such as the BBC[61], The Guardian[62] or The Sun[63]. I propose that this article be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability per WP:NOTE. Malcolmxl5 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is an autobiographical article but COI is not ground for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 18:47, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Grey's Anatomy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Music of Grey's Anatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • WP:INTERESTING is still not a reason for keeping the article. The notability of the show is not inherited by every aspect of the show. The nomination and the supporting comments have asserted policy-based objections to the article along with extensive precedent. Do you have any response to those policy-based objections? Otto4711 16:51, 15 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. --Coredesat 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merle "Hap" Johnson

edit
Merle "Hap" Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found to establish notability Toddstreat1 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good point -- there is no formal Order of Merit in the US military. It could be the UK, it could be France (based on the mission), or it could have been a private award. The only source doesn't say and I can't find him online anywhere else, so we'll probably never know. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My research didn't turn up anything. Legion of Merit (as was corrected in article, but not backed up in obits) is very notable but article is no good unless this can be proven with military records. "Order of Merit" might be the Ordre national du Mérite if he was hanging out with the French Resistance. If he is notable, veterans' groups will note his death (they will be sure to verify his medals against military records) and the article's author can try again using these reliable sources. Katr67 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- That would be good. The two remaining references in the article are family-provided obituaries, which are hardly independent, reliable sources. Toddstreat1 20:43, 15 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. --Coredesat 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Junior High School

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

Non-notable school. Before anybody asks: I didn't PROD it because there have been quite a few edits recently, and it would just get removed. I didn't speedy it because admin's usually decline high schools, and recommend AfD instead. Rjd0060 18:22, 14 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 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with the most highrise buildings

edit
Countries with the most highrise buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article presents no sources and does not define what is considered a "highrise" building. Also, as so many construction projects are going on constantly, the information changes so fast that it is very difficult to keep the page up to date. KFP (talk | contribs) 18:20, 14 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 without redirecting. A redirect here would be inherently non-neutral. --Coredesat 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word of God

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

As it stands, this article is very Christian-centric and not particularly notable. It should either be redirected to Religious text or changed to discuss only the Christian sense vis-a-vis the Gospel of John with a clear disambiguation statement at the top guiding readers to the religious text article for more general information on the topic. — DIEGO talk 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Bible is still very Christian-centric, since the sacred texts of other religions are also considered to be the divinely inspired "word of God" (e.g., the Qur'an, vedic Sutras, the Book of Mormon, the Tanakh, the writings of Guru Granth Sahib, etc.). Hence, the request to redirect to Religious text. — DIEGO talk 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Somewhere per the nom. - Rjd0060 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree very strongly with a redirect to religious text. There are many people, in many religions, who read religious texts and worship according to them who do not believe that they are the literal word of God. The two concepts are not equatable. Such a redirect would marginalize the significance of the "word of God" claim and the complex faith of those who reject the claim. In short, it would be a very POV redirect. I think "word of God" deserves an article of its own, because its significance in today's culture and politics is quite distinct from, albeit related to, the significance of religious texts. Clearly this article needs a NPOV rewrite, but the concept itself is worthy of discussion. Strong keep. - Che Nuevara 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects aren't intended to imply identical meanings - they exist to direct readers to the information they're most likely looking for. The 'word of god', for those who believe in it, is usually derived from a religious text of some kind. Those who don't are unlikely to look under it to begin with. Cosmo0 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the concept of the word of God has meaning outside of the meaning of the texts, and that's what makes the redirect POV. And to say that people who don't believe that scripture is the word of God won't look for an article on the word of God is ridiculous. If that were true, scholarly research on religious movements would be nonexistent. The point is that the information relevant to the phrase "word of God" is not in the article 'religious text'. - Che Nuevara 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Who else but User:God could write this article? ;) — DIEGO talk 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this brings up a pretty big question - can User:God write a version of Word of God that even He can't nominate for AfD? Sorry... --Action Jackson IV 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims to be a disambiguation page, but is really just a collection of links to articles that are only indirectly related to the subject, rather than being synonymous with it. Cosmo0 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect per above. These terms seem similar enough. meshach 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC) fixed malformed vote meshach 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect, as a loosely associated grouping of ideas without clear purpose or scope. Ignoring all the peripherals, this violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY in that its only real content on the title subject is a definition. VanTucky Talk 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a possibility of a good comparative article on this subject, based on sources, rather than a list of links not really having that much in common. There isnt anything here worth saving. A number of possible redirects have been suggested, none of them exact. Better not to make them. DGG (talk) 06:13, 15 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. --Coredesat 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Clone Wars battles

edit
List of minor Clone Wars battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability for these minor battles. List also lacks reliable sources. Content is entirely plot summary. EEMeltonIV 17:46, 14 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. Neil ☎ 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Warcraft)

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

Entirely in-universe, except for a laundry list of random appearances in the games. Only sources are two from 'warcraftrealms.com'. Quite a bit of the article is recited plot summary. Any relevant information could be merged to a more important article, and taken together, fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What I'd like to do is take this, and all the major races, trim them down into a single article, similar to what was done with List of major cities in World of Warcraft. However, it's a major undertaking, and the previous example I've given is also up for deletion, I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to expand the energy, since the bias appears to be in favor of deletion. I realize that any article may be deleted (or debated for) at any time, but rather than making an article in the hopes of survival, would I be simply forestalling the inevitable to occur five days from now? Rather than support or oppose deletion, I'll throw in my ideas for merging, and see what the general opinion is. Yngvarr —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Just because an article has been deleted doesn't mean you can't work on it in userspace. Ask any admin (me included) to grab a revision, and I'm sure they'd be happy to do it. David Fuchs (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable, yes... but that doesn't make something notable per WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's also not an indiscriminant collection of info, either. David Fuchs (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can cover this in an encyclopedic manner... there's no reason not to, except to provide less encyclopedic information to certain readers. I don't feel that's a good thing. --W.marsh 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedic manner includes in an out-of-universe manner relying on unrelated, reliable, fact-checked sources. Do those sources exist? If not, we cannot cover a subject in an encyclopedic manner, only in an unencyclopedic manner using original research (I played the game and found that...). Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a casual reader care about their 'abilities', especially as they aren't explained? David Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 15 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (author request). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yatata Publishing

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

Doesn't appear to have been notable, Google search turns up 9 hits. The EL in the article are poor, one I was unable to access, the other was just to EMI's web site (they bought the Yatata catalogue). Pigman 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Understood. Thought it helped map things out a bit, but deletion is fine. Thanks for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazsxdcfv1s (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:06, 14 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 (although apparently "feeble") - trim it please. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XLeague.tv

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

Gaming channel and website, with no real assertion of notability. The few sources that are used are mostly trivial, and are mainly press releases stating things like the launch of the channel. None are placed in text, so it's not directly obvious what each source is supposed to be supporting. Almost all of the author's edits are to this article, or placing links to the site on other articles. Drat (Talk) 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • VERY weak Keep While it could use being trimmed down considerably and stripped of PR fluff, I think it's probably notable. First page of G-hits turned up several news stories and bits on well-established gamer sites. Possible WP:COI violation given the pattern of editing by the original editor but it could stand on its own. Pigman 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:07, 14 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/redirect. W.marsh 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dethwater Album

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

Non notable non existent album. Delete. Rehevkor 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is notable if you actually watch the show, it's part of the main plot of two or three episodes. FallenWings47, 16:12, 8 Octboer 2007 (UTC)
Does that make it notable for Wikipedia? Rehevkor 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:07, 14 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. W.marsh 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes (simulation game)

edit
Tribes (simulation game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This game supplement has no independent sources to demonstrate that it is notable, its plot/game summary does not provide context or sourced analysis of the book’s impact or historical significance, of which there is no evidence. Gavin Collins 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What? - Rjd0060 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like games, you know, board games. There is always lack of information. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this was being sold by Amazon (it's not), I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. -Chunky Rice 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it part of Wikipedia:Verifiability but not part of Wikipedia:Notability. Amazon is not selling, but it has links to three vendors who are ... brokering vendor contacts is one of Amazon's attractions (though by no means unique to them). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think any published board game deserves some note here. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - verifiability is a policy threshold for inclusion while notability is a guideline that is typically "enforced" as if it were policy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 16 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 → CHERUB --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in CHERUB

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

The notability of this whole series of children's spy books is not well-sourced, the notability of the individual books is highly doubtful, but the notability of a list of its characters is difficult to prove. Already PRODded and de-PRODded without explanations. Goochelaar 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 14 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. KrakatoaKatie 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus ministry

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

Even if the term can be verified by reliable sources, its a neologism. Sasha Callahan 06:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't think it is a neologism. I guess if the article can be expanded it may be encyclopedic. However, we keep pages all the time saying that they could be expanded, but it never happens and just gets renominated for AfD and deleted. I say just delete this, and somebody may re-create it with a lot more context. - Rjd0060 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It seems like a widely-used term, judging by the number of them that Google finds, but it's unlikely that there's much to say about them and they're far too common to list them all. Cosmo0 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per Cosmo. Notable term in the U.S. Christian community judging from search hits, but not appropriate for treatment in an encyclopedia as yet. VanTucky Talk 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Rjd0060, the person creating this should have added more (they might be the only one that knows what this is.) MarsRover 06:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person creating this article (me) was an atheist originally unfamiliar with the term, which he first encountered in various Wikipedia articles. The article is a stub; Wikipedia does not and should not have a policy of deleting articles for being stubs. —SlamDiego←T 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (best) or Transwiki (second-best). I created this article because I was baffled by various references within Wikipedia to bus ministries, did enough research to have a basic answer, and then created a stub so that other users wouldn't need to jump through the same hoops as did I. —SlamDiego←T 11:17, 16 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 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Chandler Shrubsall

edit
William Chandler Shrubsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Listed only for his involvement in an unremarkable criminal case. Not only is Wikipedia not a newspaper, it is especially not a ten-year-old newspaper! Dybryd 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah???? Notice my "keep" 'vote' (or whatever you call it) for that reason. - Rjd0060 18:07, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Nation

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

I want to keep this article but I can't find anything online related to this organization. Without WP:V and WP:RS to support the existence of "Buddhist Nation" much less its notability, I've sadly brought it here. If anyone can find more substantial information to support this organization article, I'd be open to withdrawing this AfD nomination. Pigman 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Buddhist Nation is a name change of the former Black Buddhist Community in America, a organization popularized among urban american youth. It is notable in that it is the only African American Buddhist Sangha. I found several online references to the group listed under the subject: Black Buddhist. As it regards citations, why not hold this article to the same standard as we do such articles as American Zen Teachers Association, Buddhist Churches of America, Buddhist Women's Association, Institute of Buddhist Studies and International Buddhist Temple, to name a few? Socrates 17:11, October 15, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.210.217 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I am the author of the article Buddhist Nation. Every religious organization is "something thought up one day"... I'm interested in improving the article to better meet Wikipedia standards. In the mean time I think the deletion notice should be removed. Mjksdj 00:33, 17 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. Sandahl 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gilley

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

Does not seem notable. No assertion of notability from independent reliable sources. Should this be CSD? Flex (talk/contribs) 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe in most situations, but in this one, the lack of sources doesn't allow the notability of the subject to be verified. - Rjd0060 18:04, 14 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbvb

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

This seems to be a non-notable person. The edit history is also almost exclusively done by the user who is the subject of the article. This is my first AFD request so I apologise for any errors I have made in the process. --Anthony5429 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Pro Tour

edit
Celtic Pro Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to lack in notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Tour

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

Seems to lack in notability. Was nominated for speedy under G11 previously, which I declined, so I leave it up to the AFD jury to decide. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 14 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 evidence of notability provided, no valid keep arguments put forth, WP:SNOW as delete.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGNPH

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

This article, created by User:AGNPH, contains no assertion of notability, but because it has been deleted via AfD before (which I saw after the PROD was removed, my mistake), it is brought here. The article is essentially a run-down of the group's history, as copied from the WikiFur article, with no WP:RS to indicate how or why the site is notable. Note that the article is different from the previously deleted version; however, there isn't much in the way of encyclopedic information in this version. I recommend to delete. Kinu t/c 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See contributions - AGNPH is a WP:SPA
I added several WP:RS so you can keep the article. Please see the "References" section. What is wrong with it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Blueboy96, I do not have a conflict of interest, I am merely someone who enjoys wanking at pokemon hentai and who decided to choose for "AGNPH" as a username. I am not affiliated with the AGNPH website in any way.
I've removed the Dramatica link. Blueboy96 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to provide reliable sources for the article, and you remove them. Why? AGNPH 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is a fine source, it even has its own article, as does Acronym Finder, which is used as a source in various other articles (examples: leet, w00t). Nothing wrong with these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read WP:RS and see what constitutes a reliable source. The consensus of established editors is that UD, ED, and other such websites are not reliable. --Kinu t/c 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a vanity article. please be more polite in your comments. And what does "NN" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NN is non notable. And how was I impolite? You probably shouldn't be too involved with this discussion with the conflict of interest. - Rjd0060 18:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a conflict of interest, read my comment above. I simply like the AGNPH website, what does that matter to you? I think the subject of the article is certainly notable, as i have added multiple WP:RS to the article. AGNPH —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:04, 14 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. W.marsh 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in Oz (TV series)

edit
List of deaths in Oz (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft, content fork. Blueboy96 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Cruft. Merge important ones with the shows article if you really find it necessary. - Rjd0060 17:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: OR, probably not sourceable (other than entirely through primary), no encyclopedic value. - Che Nuevara 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it concerns an integral aspect of an especially violent show known to some degree because of its body count. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't OR in the slightest, as what happens is correct, it has great encyclopedic value because it is informative and very helpful, this page difines "encyclopedic value". Also the deaths are an important aspect for the show and meeningful as the chracters are dead, and although we see the actors elsewhere, the characters are propperly dead. I shall add more if you think I need to, as this was me getting into the debate, and by the way, I sort of owe this page as it was very helpful to me at a point in my life. MJN SEIFER 11:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never seen the show nor am I a fan of violence of this nature. What might help this article, which does seem to have all the dry details already documented, is to share some of the critical thinking about the deaths from seasoned writers who have reviewed the show(s). I know New York Times often drills down to offer insightful analysis on shows of this high profile. Beef up a decent lede so someone like myself might actually develop an interest in the behind the scenes information. Benjiboi 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not cruft because it's central to the show. Some advice: find a reference that covers the significance (notability) of death in the show, and find references for each death from a reputable source other than the show itself. Yes this seems silly, but it's Wikipedia policy. See WP:VER. The Transhumanist    06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft. JJL 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Oz (TV show) is known for its body count, then cite that in the main article. Any assertation in the article that the show's body count is high is a synthesis without a source to back it up. A list of every death in show does little more than give pieces of the show's plot anyway, and I don't see how this article could be more than a pure plot summary. --Phirazo 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coment but still keep If we put it there it will overtake the article. Real ensyclopedias don't have everything on one page. 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) MJN SEIFER

Comment I'm not suggesting listing the deaths in Oz (TV series). I'm saying the purpose of this article could be best served as a secondary source cited in the main article that says "Oz is a violent show". There is no need to list them all in a big plot summary. --Phirazo 16:57, 19 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 After consultation with German and Czech wikipedians, including Martin-Vogel, RalfR, and Juan de Vojnikov, I conclude that this is definitely a hoax. Delete, delete all related images, consider blocking Zebraic as hoaxster. DS 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hevstäf

edit

There is absolutely no record about the existence of this village, google shows nothing, maps of Czech Republic show nothing, there is no reference anywhere, even the transportation planner (idos.cz) doesn't know this place and I am pretty sure that town with 2,314 must have record and must be on the map (even smallers are). I think this is a pretty fine hoax. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless author or another fellow wikipedian provide reliable sources. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence?- this is a pretty old article, has no clean up or past discussion occurred? What is the evidence this is a hoax, as opposed to badly referenced? Unless someone has good evidence, this is way too early for deletion.- keep122.148.218.27 16:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old article means nothing, there is no reference and it is not up the nominators or those who doubt to provide references. Provide reference that this town exists. Provide at least one official link with the reference, place on the map (maps.google.com, mapy.cz or some other). Also if you wish to participate I recommend you to create an account because IP votes has low or none weight. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything trustworthy on the net, including Google books, for all the names mentioned, so it looks like a hoax to me. Certainly that doesn't prove it is one but the burden of proof lies with those who claimed it existed. Sciurinæ 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a professional hoax. Here's the timeline:

I guess there was a gut feeling that this town didn't exist ... Sciurinæ 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment waiting to make up my mind - Neither of the websites cited, www.hevstaf.info and www.hevstaf.cz, exist (the former is a spam repository, while the latter simply does not exist). Things smell. Moreover, and I know this in itself would not mean anything, the article appears to have had a long gestation as a user page. Goochelaar 16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were only two editors H (talk · contribs) and Zebraic (talk · contribs) the rest edits are replacements of Infobox, maintenance of bots and templates changes with no relation to the content of the article. H, the original author seems to be inactive for longer period and Zebraic seems to be active, so I posted info about this AfD to his talk page, waiting what he will bring here. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure H was the original author? His first edit says "moved here". Zagalejo^^^ 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what was the original place but starter here is him. Every town, city and even the smallest village is on the map here, so I can't believe this exists without any record anywhere. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the context: User:Zebraic started it as his "first article" on his own User page. Few days later, H proposed to move it to its own sub-page instead and few minutes later did so (I don't think H plays any role here except for that). Some days later, Zebraic moved it into the article space but has kept a version, User:Zebraic/Hevstäf. He also created Image:Hevstafonthemap.jpg, Image:Hevstafi-coatofarmskavka.png and Image:Hevstaf Coatofarms-w-kavka.png. Sciurinæ 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, I have to apologize to anyone who has gotten involved in this "deletion" proposal, because it is not my intent to waste anyone's time. There are several things to consider about this article. First off this that [www.hevstaf.info] is more than a repository for spam; there's actual information there, and some tiny landscape photos. I suppose you must scroll down a bit to see past those horrid advertisements; the page was clearer when I first referenced it. Here's an excerpt from one of the links on the page, the link labeled zdroj informací (Which I believe means "information source"? Not sure.): "First written record comes from around 900 AD from court of Spyhtinev II, of Premyslids. However, folk of this region (not Region OFFICIAL, kraj) and archeological evidence shows that, if not in name, than in spirit has Hevstäf existed since beginning of the european history." This page is more than a spam repository; I feel it's a legitimate source. If you guys feel otherwise, there's nothing I can do about that. As for www.hevstaf.cz, I don't know. I know this bit looks bad, but I never noticed that it is gone. If you like, we may remove that source (although I never referenced it). I can't prove anything in regards to that site, but please believe me when I say, it was there when I began creating this entry.

Second: I am the only editor on this article? I suppose I am--I watch many of my contributions, and have seen little contributed to this article outside of my own edits. I am certainly the original creator for it. It strikes me as strange that I was the only one who ever really edited this article, but seeing as it pertains to a small town in the Czech Republic, it is understandable. As the only editor of this article, I can only defend myself, because, if it is a hoax, then it is a well-done hoax of which I was not aware. What I mean is, if it is a hoax, it exists independently and prior to this article, and I have merely been an unaware vehicle for its propagation in creating this article. If Hevstäf does not exist in any capacity (which at this point becomes an infinitely difficult thing to prove, and brings up more questions than it answers), then the "hoax" is severely, severely elaborate.

Third: Since I am the "sole author" of the article, I know the burden of proof lies on me. Has anyone looked up the books/articles I have referenced? Please look at these books: # Haywood, John (2005). Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations. London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 90-91. ISBN 0-141-01448-2.

  1. ^ Dubs, Homer H. (1941). "The misleading nature of Leibniz's Monadology". Philosophical Review 50 (5): 508-516. Cornell University. DOI:10.2307/2180622. ASIN B0007K0T9U. The town is mentioned in both. That should be enough to count as "verifiable".

Fourth: Again, as the "sole author", I'm very much aware of the implications of a hoaxed entry allegation. Please look at my contributions to Wikipedia. I am not the most active member, certainly, but I have made a considerable number of edits, none of which are hoaxes. Furthermore, please consider what I, or anyone, would hope to gain in creating a hoax such as the one you suspect is Hevstäf. I don't see it. What the Hell would the point be of such a hoax? And if I'm the "hoaxer", where are my other hoaxes? I suppose that that is a bit peripheral to the argument at hand. I just ask kindly that you consider it, because I fear that my user account and character are going to come directly under fire because of this.

Fifth: As I said on my talk page, I have visited the town. That counts as nothing, I know, so I implore those who live near the coordinates to go visit the map coordinates and see what you see. What you should see is a town there.

Sixth: The coat of arms image was originally created by; I had drawn it in my field book, and recreated it from my visit. The site, www.hevstaf.info, has more to say about the coat-of-arms and what it means (look in its gallery). I also created the map, from a public domain map of the Czech republic here on Wikipedia. By "created", I mean all that I did was put a little dot indicating the location of Hevstäf on a pre-created map of the Czech Republic. I did this for obvious reasons: To lend a visual aid to anyone who wanted to know where the town was. Many of these articles on little towns such as this have maps like this one! I don't deny any of this! But I thought that I had adequately referenced my sources. Zebraic 19:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence, very probably a hoax revealed after long time. References about villages in the Czech Republic with the population of 50 persons are easily found on the internet. This "town" has more than 2,000 inhabitants and no evidence. Also no single mention in The Misleading Nature of Leibniz's Monadology which author cites. I have this article in PDF and can send to interested users. - Darwinek 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Zagalejo -- This article, unfortunately, has sourcing issues. I would suggest that, if you are attached to this article, you userify it and search for sources. - Che Nuevara 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this intended for Zebraic? Zagalejo^^^ 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though it is intended for me. I can userify this if it gets out of hand. My problem here is that people would rather merely delete this instead of allowing me to userify it. They aren't looking at all the sources I've stated. The one source that you claim is wrong is not the original hard copy, but a PDF. The [www.hevstaf.info] is shown to contain more information on the town then many other "sources" used in many other Wiki articles I've seen. Zebraic 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete immediately - Have I stumbled upon this page before I would have deleted it immediately. It's obviously just a joke. – Caroig (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Zebraic, don't you feel there is some of a contradiction in what you say, between "if it is a hoax, it exists independently and prior to this article, and I have merely been an unaware vehicle for its propagation in creating this article" (which would be the case if, say, you just heard or read about Hevstäf somewhere) and "I have visited the town"? Goochelaar 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I stated that, if it is a hoax, it is "severely, severely" elaborate. I have visited the town. But apparently it does not exist, according to all you. While we sit here talking about it, many of you state that it does not exist. There's the contradiction that I see. You cannot talk about something if it does not exist in some capacity or another. And I cannot prove that I visited this town some years back, so I am saying, IF IT IS A HOAX--Someone went to the trouble of creating a town, with this name, and giving it a history--THEN IT IS SEVERELY ELABORATE and either I am going insane, or I have implanted memories, or I don't exist in "real life". Zebraic 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose it is an unfortunate coincidence that the domain hevstaf.info was registered on 20 October 2006 (see for instance here), the same day in which you put in the reference to this phantom site (see here)? Goochelaar 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely hoax with spoofed source ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very good point. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though calling it a deliberate hoax is perhaps incorrect - it appears that this has been set up as part of an arts project in an attempt, as Stephen puts it, to create a piece of metafiction. Though I can understand this aim which, in some ways, is laudable (I have seen many such instances of metafiction within art in my time as an arts reviewer and artist), I must stress that Wikipedia is not the place for such art. Though the intent was not to hoax anyone, that is the only possible outcome of this exercise if it is allowed to stay. Not only that, but by providing purely fictional information, it weakens the reputation of Wikipedia, and also Wikipedia's ability to provide information that is as reliable and accurate as possible. Stephen, though I can understand what you are trying to achieve here, it is not a wise course of action, any more than going into a bank with a toy gun and pretending to hold it up would be a wise form of performance art. I suggest you find some other, more appropriate, forum for your metafictional work. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 15 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 enough. Bearian 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biker Dogs Motorcycle Club

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

I am concerned that this article does not pass WP:N, but there have been several TV appearances and suchlike, so I didn't feel that I could just tag it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. I'd like the community's comments on this one. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale (album)

edit
Ashley Tisdale (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and speculative. The article mentions a "private press release" with no further way to verify the information. The album is a year away from release, so the crystal ball effect is in play. It's probably too early for this article yet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 14 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, author request by blanking. —Verrai 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Davies (Television News Journalist)

edit
Edward Davies (Television News Journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable and non-notable TV journalist. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. Being on TV doesn't make him notable as that's his job. Nothing appears to make him stand out from any other TV journalist. Initial speedy request declined and changed to a Prod. Creator removed prod with no reason given -- WebHamster 15:41, 14 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Jak

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

I began to expand this out, but on second thought, it looks like this drink product simply isn't notable enough. The three borderline sources in the article are all I can easily find. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 14 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. --Coredesat 01:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atrabilioso

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

Completely non-notable; doesn't even have a Spanish-language wiki link. Vanity and unprofessional. Ich (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, though I question the nom's reasoning. Just because some Spanish-language related article doesn't have awiki entry en espanol doesn't make it non-notable. Also, I'd like to know how the author, a good faith editor with some history in Wikipedia, and not just to this article, is committing vanity. Please assume good faith.--Sethacus 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:55, 14 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 WP:SNOW keep. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acapulco

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

Queried speedy delete request {{db-spam}}. Anthony Appleyard 14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just remove the speedy tag as vandalism? Speedy keep for obvious reasons. Deor 14:44, 14 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 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward D. Malone

edit

Probable hoax, (Ed malone is a character in the novel), and the article has no sources a brief google search found no evidence for the existance of this guy, but I did find lots of references to the character in the book. I took the unusual step of coming directly to afd rather than discussing this with the author because WP:HOAX requires it, and I agree with this. Arch dude 14:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This may be a confused article creator rather than a hoax. There appears to be a recent Italian novel Ritorno al mondo perduto (also published under the variant title Ritorno alla terra di Maple White), that purports to be a translation of a work by "Edward D. Malone". I have a feeling that the article contents are part of the fictional backstory of this sequel to Conan Doyle's novel, and the WP editor, who is Italian, took it all ad litteram. In any event, there's no reason to keep this in-universe material based on a nonnotable book. Deor 16:14, 14 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. Neil ☎ 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of meta-references in fiction

edit
Examples of meta-references in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - see also this AFD for several similar lists. All of the same reasons those articles were deleted apply to this list as well. indiscriminate collection of loosely and unassociated items, completely unreferenced and chock-full of original research. Otto4711 13:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 13:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, the article doesn't explain it, but a "meta reference" is when characters in a television show acknowledge that they are in a television show. We didn't know that's what it was called, although it's an element of a drinking game based on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This one is a list of every time it was noticed by the author or authors, which is semi-interesting, but still original research. While "merge" might be a solution, the authors are handicapped by the need to quote long blocks of dialogue so that we can enjoy the "inside joke", and look at "examples" as everything, rather than as a handful of representative for-instances. If the vote is to keep, do the readers a favor and put in a damn definition of "meta reference". Mandsford 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator of the other AFD I have to agree here, so Delete. The list is "interesting" but a textbook example of an example-farm (and Wikipedia is not David Letterman). There are already sufficient examples under meta-reference to explain the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratadrake (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For encyclopedic coverage, fiction articles should link to Meta-reference to explain the concept, and not the other way around. – sgeureka t•c 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per recent precedents and nominator's reasoning. /Blaxthos 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This nomination is a textbook example of the pedantry which is rendering Wikipedia increasingly less valuable by the day. The article is for the most part accurate, most entries carry the requisite citations (or advert explicitly to the media in which they can be found) and adds to the store of human knowledge (which is the raison d'etre of any encyclopaedia.) Mandsford - no offence, but the apparent obsession with "original research" evident in your contribution baffles me; will people like you be happy until Wikipedia articles consist of a list of links and citations to other encyclopaediae, publications, periodicals and databases? This nomination is a test case on the future of Wikipedia; the article, while requiring a certain amount of maintenance, represents many of the factors which make Wikipedia a worthwhile proposition. Lose it, and we may as well pull the shutters down for good. DublinDilettante 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Dublin, I can appreciate your frustration with the prohibition against "original research", particularly since we have so many idiotic articles about TV episodes and characters and other crap that violates the OR rule. Someday, I hope that garbage is gone, but for some reason, nobody nominates that stuff. The first time I ever encountered AfD was after I had written a wonderful article "proving" a published statement by a film buff that a majority of movie scripts include the hackneyed line "Let's get out of here!" Part of my inspiration was in seeing an article about an episode of Smallville, and I figured, if crap like that makes it into Wikipedia, why can't my idea get in there too? It was entertaining, well-written, and a semi-original concept for an article... but it was "original research" (and no, reading movie scripts on imsdb.com didn't change anything). The problem with writing an article based on what you've observed personally, other than its unacademic nature, is it tends to become a bulletin board for everyone else has observed personally. Please note that Wikipedia offers a rare opportunity to have your work "published" before a decision is made to accept it or reject it. Everywhere else in publishing, most submissions never see the light of day. Remember, being on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Mandsford 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Does the reader really need this (majorly incomplete) list of 164 examples to understand what a meta-reference is? And if the wikipedian adding an entry to this list labels something as a meta-reference without backup by a reliable source - isn't that exactly what constitutes OR? – sgeureka t•c 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The anti-OR policy was introduced to prevent people from presenting dubious scientific research, phrases they'd coined themselves, etc. It is not necessary to delete an article like this because of the no original research policy, because these examples are clearly within the definition of a meta-reference (and if some of them are more dubious, they should just be removed from the list). 96T 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't presume to comment on what the reader "needs", nor do I see the relevance of this list's partial nature. Do we call an arbitrary halt to List of battles because it's never going to be exhaustive and anyway, we get the point? If you have a problem with the veracity or reliability of any given entry, by all means modify or remove it. Personally I have more faith in the intellectual capabilities of both readers and editors to make a judgement on a rather well-defined literary device without recourse to citations. If I wish to state that 2 + 2 = 4 in an article, do I need to cite the published opinion of an eminent mathematician or can I simply use my calculator (or, heaven forfend, my brain?) Although it could do with some more context and a polish, the article is useful, informative, entertaining and factual. I'd question whether anyone who can't see the value of this article belongs on Wikipedia at all. DublinDilettante 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OR, apart from the intro sentence, mentions that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include [...] artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." And this list of meta-references is exactly that: interpretation of primary sources => OR (though harmless). But that's not really my main argument. (1) As this list is called "Examples of...", and since an example is "something that serves to explain or illustrate a rule," I doubt that it takes 164 instances to explain or illustrate the concept of meta-references to the reader until he gets it - less than a dozen will surely do, and those can be covered in the main article. (2) There is no reason to believe that 164 entries will be the end of this list. If it wasn't WP:POINTY, I'd just dump an earlier version of the Stargate SG-1 episode "200" into this article, as these 45 minutes of television are one big meta-reference. Should I? - No. Could I? - According to your arguments, yes. WP:IINFO problems. – sgeureka t•c 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do it if you want. It would get reverted very quickly, as would any frivolous entry which didn't accord with common sense. There's nothing in this article a reasonably intelligent user wouldn't instantly infer from a cursory perusal of the examples cited. Wikipedia policies are not irrefragable articles of faith which must be observed to the very letter, and particularly not to one user's interpretation of that letter. Common sense dictates that this article must stay; if that's not good enough for you, try WP:IAR. DublinDilettante 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There aren't many frivolous entries in the old "200" articles that don't accord with common sense, especially now that I actually sourced some as meta-references per the producers (60% ?). And this signifies the problem again: 40% of the old "200" entries are still unsourcable (and probably will always be, so I deleted most of them as OR), and this meta-references list is indiscriminate if it gives no particular reason to prevent the addition of dozens of (sourced!) meta-references from a 45 minute TV episode. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is clearly notable material. it needs citations, so mark that it needs citations. most of the argument above seems to be 'needs improvement' so give it time to improve, two or three more years should be adequate.--Buridan 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this list is of much higher quality than the lists that use to get deleted, and it is a nice supplement to the meta-reference article. 96T 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because comprehensive articles such as this one provide handy reference tools for anyone reseaching meta-references in fiction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless listcruft. Are "meta-references" as a concept notable, sure. But not a list of every time that one has occured. Simply not needed on an encyclopedia. Dannycali 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Secondary sources are good. No secondary sources is bad. Massive, unmaintainable, unlimited, uncitable outside of primary sources "spot the breaking of the fourth wall" lists are also bad. Personally, I won't be happy till all articles on fiction cite secondary sources. --Phirazo 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. This list could potentially list thousands of unrelated shows, films, and songs. "Your Song", "You're So Vain", "Song For Whoever", those three songs took me 10 seconds to think of, and there are hundreds more. Listing them, or others, isn't encyclopedic. Crazysuit 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the works are notable, the self-references are notable. Just as plot can be sourced directly, so can this. I have seen the phrase "Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics." used repeated for every possible sort of article listing creative works except for those by an author--there are other things that are also important. The use of a fictional technique is a clearly discriminating factor and a close association. List of episodes 24 minutes long--that would be my example of a loose association. Perhaps someone who uses that phrase will give some examples of what they consider tight associations so we can discuss our differences. I've asked before--there has never been a reply. I wonder if the phrase is being used with any meaning at all.
By no means all fictional works contain these references. WP is not paper, and if the list is long, it can be organized. But can someone here possibly deal with this by finding an academic article discussing the subject, which will certainly source a few examples in what some people here think the only acceptable fashion. They may be wrong as a matter of current policy, and also about what the current policy ought to be--stating the obvious is not OR--but we might as well satisfy every possible objection.DGG (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A two hour movie with a three second moment in which a character says a line to camera is not closely associated with a 30 minute TV show with a three second moment in which a character says a line to camera or a four hour stage play in which a character has an aside to the audience. "A line is spoken toward the audience" is not a theme. Otto4711 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • of course neither being a particular sexuality a theme or a relationship of any sort, nor are 99% of associative properties a theme. This one is fairly strong in association, 'people performing a theoretically signficant action' which is easily comparable to people having a sexuality.--Buridan 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of your argument is nothing more than WP:WAX and so merits no further response. The second part is, for all intents and purposes, made up out of whole cloth and in claiming that these are examples of "theoretically significant actions" smacks of original research and POV. Otto4711 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the argument is that the pov is separating one article of type x from another article of type x, people don't like 'in popular culture' but they do like 'sexual preferences' so the categories used to dismiss in popular culture are not used to dismiss sexual preferences. that is pov and/or systematic bias. as for theoretically significant actions, i could probably find many thousands of citations that finds meta-references to be theoretically significant, but all i meant by it was notable and since there is already an article, it is by definition notable. theoretical significance is just 'notability' to a specific community, which if the community is large enough to be represented on wp, tends not to be deleted. --Buridan 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of people who don't like articles relating to sexual orientation, as evidenced by the constant vandalism of such articles and the occasional deletion attempt. What many people find unencyclopedic (or if you insist, "do not like") are endless lists of every single time someone says "Foo" on TV or there's a "Foo" in a movie or someone uses the word "Foo" in a song lyric, bunged together and presented as some sort of fait accompli attestation of the notability of "Foo in popular culture." Of the many, many IPC-style articles that have been deleted, I'm aware of very few to no editors who don't believe that the topic of the references is notable. The notability of the thing the references are about does not mean that a list of every single example of that thing is notable or encyclopedic. I don't understand why it's so difficult to separate "Foo" from "mentions of Foo" but it seems to be terribly confusion for a lot of people. In this instance, no one is disputing that the topic "Meta-reference" is notable as a technique of fiction. That does not translate into encyclopedicness for a list of every example of a meta-reference. Otto4711 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, not every single reference, but it does translate into notable references. this contains some of those. those are encyclopedic. I could probably wander over to the library and find an encyclopedia or major reference work that lists a few. the beauty of wikipedia... is that we do not have to list merely a few, as we are not limited by production costs. but there are notable materials, and encyclopedic materials in this list. in that they are in this list, this list along with the concept that it helps to enlighten does make this list notable. --Buridan 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is remarkably similar to one of the examples given in Wikipedia:Listcruft, "List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker", as the sound of a woodpecker is not a notable means for selecting and organizing a list of items that are not otherwise related. --Stratadrake 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously well-intended effort at presenting an intellectual device by examples only. Article should be a bit better organized and needs work but hardly reason for deletion and I will add my voice to those who question why the need to delete items that seem trivial on the surface but are certainly of interest to many. Every list started out needing regular editing and every list most likely still gets nonsense added that has to be pruned away - hardly reasons for deletion. Fix through regular editing and perhaps when everyone only writes in perfect encyclopedic prose we can call it a day. Until then consider fixing articles not destroying the obvious hard work other volunteers have put into building them. Benjiboi 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of interest to many is not a good argument. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be popularity contests. There are I'm sure tens or hundreds of thousands of articles that hold no interest for you whatsoever. If "of interest to many" is a valid reason for keeping then "of interest to few" becomes a valid reason for deleting. Do you want to go down that road? As for the work put into articles, it is indeed unfortunate when people spend time on articles that are unsuitable but the amount of effort expended on an unsuitable article doesn't make the article any mroe suitable. Again, if "people put a lot of work into it" becomes a valid reason for keeping then "no one's working on it" becomes a valid reason for deletion. And no one expects that every article will instantly be written in perfect encyclopedic prose. That's just a silly thing to say to shore up weak argumentation. Otto4711 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a perfect example of the type of list we don't want. Vague, long, totally unreferenced. Another endless list.

Ridernyc 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete- for all the above criticisms, just a stupid list.JJJ999 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment stupid in what way? Its a notable concept with notable examples. I thus interpret stupid to mean that you think it was not done well enough. Like all WP articles, it needs some editing. The appropriate response to an imperfect article is to do the work to improve it. DGG (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know perfectly well what I mean, because you also know perfectly well the way I vote in almost all "list" votes. This is an endless and arbitrary list, which is unecessary and the same anti-list arguments apply to it.JJJ999 02:51, 22 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 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portella della Ginestra massacre

edit
Portella della Ginestra massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedy delete tagged {{db-nocontext}}, but it seems to have plenty of content and notability to me. Anthony Appleyard 13:18, 14 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 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcast

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

Smells like a web neologism to me that never caught on. About 195 unique ghits. Of course the content in its current form has to go, as Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. MER-C 12:43, 14 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 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convirtualization

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

"Convirtualization is a Neologism" - make that a protologism with only 2 ghits. The article is Hfoxwell (talk · contribs), you know what that means. MER-C 12:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Malcolmxl5 00:19, 18 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 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby mentor

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

"A baby mentor is a very new term" and not a widely used one for that. The article creator was Babymentor (talk · contribs), so its vanispamcruftisement as well. MER-C 12:01, 14 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/redirect. W.marsh 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaroan, Bacnotan, La Union

edit
Cabaroan, Bacnotan, La Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ok, this will be a long one. First, the article came from WikiPilipinas, a website for Filipino information and taste. Due to their niche, they are more lenient in notability standards than we do. Though it passes WikiPilipinas standard, the article does not pass Wikipedia standard. Second, towns are inherently notable, baranggays are not towns. Rather, they are parts of a town. Third, there are thousands of baranggays in our country. It will be a bad idea for Wikipedia to have all of them unless something REALLY interesting is in a particular baranggay. My suggestion is to delete the article and redirect it to Bacnotan, La Union Lenticel (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- As a wikipedian currently living in La Union, I'm familiar with the name of the barangay (I don't go out much), for some reason. I don't recall what it's known for. But I do have to say that while it may be notable for someone who lives in La Union, I don't see its relevance to the world at large. The only exception I can think of in the case of La Union is Damortis, Santo Tomas, La Union, because of its famous smoked fish industry and for the Damortis PNR Station, which is well known to historians as what used to be the train stop that served as a stepping stone to Baguio and to architectural circles as being one of the best examples of the architecture of its time. Pinoys from all over are familiar with the Barangay, but not necessarily the town of Santo Tomas, La Union. Hm. If the article doesn't exist, do you think I should make it? Hehe. At Any rate, I do vote delete for Cabaroan.Alternativity 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
changed vote to "Merge usabale info to Bacnotan, La Union and Redirect" as per suggestion of bluemask. -- Alternativity 07:03, 20 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. W.marsh 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiekh Muhammed Abdullah Baba-kerala-India

edit
Shiekh Muhammed Abdullah Baba-kerala-India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The main reason is the person is not so notable and even the name of the article is wrong. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:10, 14 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 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velociprey

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

Was speedied {{db-nocontext}}, but has been lengthened; but may now be "NN videogame monster". Anthony Appleyard 10:52, 14 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 Strong Keep. Phgao 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC). W.marsh 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Saturnine

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

See comments on AfD for Eric Hazebroek (uses self-citing websites, no outside sources, also coming up are other bands that fail notability guidelines) Phgao 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. the drummer plays with Bumblefoot (Guns'n Roses), guitarist plays with Stream of Passion, drummer has deal with Sabian, and S-Hoop. Eric Hazebroek 11:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yes the drummer played with him, and I even can't find any proof of that as there are no sources cited in [80] nor can I find his name in [81], not to say that I don't believe you, but you need to give refs. Phgao 07:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band had released two albums and received positive reviews in the music press. This band also contains at least one member who was once a part of a notable band. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You might need to review that as the albums are self released as as such have no backing from any notable recording studio. POsitive reviews? You mean 2 reviews as one is double referenced, and if news press for you is a 3 paragraph 10 min job, or a user written review then that's ok. But clearly the news reviews are by nn websites that should not be cited. Phgao 07:04, 15 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 of the discussion was Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. However, a redirect link you probably his most notable role can be made, but according to the article the more notable bit by him doesn't even had an article, although a possible redirect link to The Saturnine can be made.--JForget 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hazebroek

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

uses self-citing websites, no outside sources, also coming up are other bands that fail notability guidelines Phgao 10:43, 14 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 12:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thien Van Pham

edit

This article appears to describe the achievements of a modern-day Edison. Unfortunately, in the absence of any external verification, this seems likely to be a work of fantasy, as neither the name of its subject, or "Starvoice System Corporation", the first company they supposedly sold, have any Google hits, something which seems unlikely for a billionaire entrepreneur. Unless corroborating evidence can be supplied to back up the contents of this article, I suggest deletion. The Anome 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: the original poster of the article has now deleted [82] the words "billionaire" and "billions" from the article, presumably in response to this AfD listing. -- The Anome 10:44, 14 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. -- Longhair\talk 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Lutheran School

edit
Good News Lutheran School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

School that is non-notable Phgao 10:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just being there does not make it notable. - Rjd0060 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If all we can identify from reliable sources is that it exists, there are many classes of things or people which exist but are not notable. Orderinchaos 13:02, 16 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Erskine

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

Procedural nomination -- I am not nominating for deletion, but only assisting an editor with this second nomination (per this request). Original AFD closed with no consensus, I am going to assume that the article is being re-nominated due to the same rationale as the first nomination -- namely, fails notability and contains no reliable secondary sources. No improvement or addition of reliable sources since the first nomination. -- Blaxthos (talk · contribs · logs) 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Actual nominator needs to add his rationale as well. /Blaxthos 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- this article was bogged down, in part my fault, due to a two man argument that blotted out interest in it, then resulted in a no consensus nomination. This time I will be short and sweet, and hopefully we can see the back of this thing. Just to make it clear, I am the nominator of this AfD.
    • Reasons For Deletion'
    • Erskine has no real notability. A mere convenor of a kids tournament with about 30 teams per year simply doesn't cut it. The tournament itself is notable, but there is no way to justify his inclusion merely because he was the first person to convene. The suborganisations to run this already existed, he just said "hey, why don't you all debate in the 'world' comp this year".
    • WSDC is a pretty paltry worlds comp, it is of far less note than most debating tourneys and of less prestige, it gets very little funding for one, and is incredibly uncompetetive for another. Witness Australia winning about 7 years in a row. It is nothing like the Chemistry Olympiad (whose founder also would not be notable IMO, but this is far more clear cut).
    • The committees he is on are made up of a handful of people, and do nothing for notability- ADF for eg, comprises perhaps 6 people who meet once per year. Grand titles do not notability make.
    • COI issues as well as POV, since the writer knows Erskine (who himself claims he doesn't want a page, and doesn't think he deserves it). He also edits out any criticism of Erskine, even when sourced, but considers material such as what primary school he went to, or the fact he plays the Organ at a local church, of great noteworthiness.
This is the most blatant vanity page I have seen in a while, even post-clean up, and I think it should be removed immediately. If it stays, by the same logic other winners or founders or club presidents of debating would have grounds for their own pages, which would amount to thousands of people.JJJ999 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. The article just states, in the most flowery and aggrandising prose possible, that this is a guy who helps organise debate contests for kids. I'm surprised the first AFD was closed as no consensus, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. However, it should be noted that the nominator has a COI. He has made disparaging comments about the subject, tried to add OR and poorly sourced material, and has vandalized the page. V-train 17:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am swayed by Erskine's comments at the end of the previous AfD in which he asks to be removed. I am troubled by the vehemence with which JJJ999 has persistently attacked Erskine and the article's author, on the talk page and in the previous AfD. It seems personal to me, and unkind to say the least. Despite all this, I think the best resolution of this situation is to delete. -Jmh123 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I too question JJJ999's concerns, the page unfortunately does not excel WP:NN in spite of the nice refs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete I am not swayed by Erskin's comment--I think it is a reaction to the vehemence of the discussion, and a reflection of the subject's reasonable desire for modesty. It would be a very bad precedent if we allowed the rhetoric at afd to scare away subjects of articles--it would be all to easy to persuade a subject to withdraw by being sufficiently sharp about it. The way to discourage improper activities is to not do what they are trying to accomplish. Just as we cannot allow subjects to veto articles that they think insufficiently laudatory, we cannot allow editors to use such methods to dissuade the subjects from proper articles. Article content can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but upon considering Jreferee's detailed comment below, I agree that the article itself can not be supported. Regardless of method of deletion, there is not real notability. DGG (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Debater Christopher Erskine has an interview, which comprises the article (1) Blenkin, Max. (September 13, 1998) Australian Associated Press Fed: Great debate produced no knockout win. In that interview, he discussed in detail the September 1998 debate between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley. That's about it on the reliable source material. The attorney for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service is named Christopher Erskine. Either debater Christopher Erskine or attorney Christopher Erskine often writes letters to the editor of the The Canberra Times - a lot of letters. There is a U.S. film director named Christopher Erskine. The attorney Christopher Erskine and U.S. film director Christopher Erskine might meet WP:N. Debater Christopher Erskine does not meet WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 03:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see DGG's point, but the attacks have been relentless, and have long preceded the first AfD. Perhaps I'm just too sympathetic: why should a borderline notable person have be subjected to this if he doesn't want it? Having said that, this Christopher Erskine is an attorney. I have no idea if he's the same attorney to whom Jreferee refers. From the "trivia" section I deleted: Erskine lives in Canberra, where he works as a barrister, specialising in commercial and government law cases.Blackburn Chambers. -Jmh123 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing personally who this guy is, I take considerable offense to the idea that he deserves a page, given he has no notability at all. If he really was notable, my view would be he should deal with abuse like any other public figure. There is nothing borderline about his notability, he (once) organised childrens debating and happens to be a lawyer (hardly rare). The creator of the page has never identified themselves, voted in the AfDs or justified the page beyond this remark in the first AfD, in which he holds himself out as an uninterested voter: "Keep. I think founding a world championship makes him pretty significant. Ilcewf 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ". So while (someone claiming to be) Erskine denies creating the page, I am in no doubt that he, or one of his friends, was the original creator.JJJ999 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no interest in this, so I will not argue one way or the other (though from scanning the article it looks like a "delete"). I just find it ridiculous that this is being nominated less than a month after it survived an AfD. Maybe it does deserve to be deleted, but geez... faithless (speak) 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a month, the original nomination was botched by me, it was the 15th, so approx 30 days.JJJ999 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD ended on the 22nd, making it barely over three weeks time. V-train 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JJJ999 seems to have some sort of personal vendetta against the subject of this article. The last AfD closed less than a month ago. JJJ999 made several unnessarily nasty comments and accusations in that AfD (and seems to be starting to do so again in this AfD). Since that AfD closed, he's deliberately vandalised the page and attempted to add in things of very questionable verifiability and relavance in an obvious attempt to cast the subject in a bad light (all of which is discussed in detail in the article's talk page). But in spite of all this, I still think the subject is notable. He's the founder of a world championship event contested by national teams from countries from all over the world (and JJJ999 is the only person I've ever heard assert that it's a non-notable world championship). The article is heavily referenced with sources from several debate-related websites from around the world, and a few other sources including an Australian government website. I think it should stay. Dorange 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • dommentDoranges first post in 10 days. guess what his last one was on... but hey, only I have strong personal views...So, to summarise, Dorange has made no post in 10 days. His last one was on Erskine. Since Sept 18th, 4 weeks prior to this above post, he has made 22edits/posts, half pertain to Erskine, the others with the exception of a few about Marmalade Atkins all pertain to debating articles (Randy Harvey, the ficticious WPDC, Yugo Deb Net and Erik Eastaugh (all were deleted btw). To suggest Dorange has no vested interest in the subject matter, or that his views are less strong than mine, seems inaccurate. Similar to Purple, whose only role here seems to be to defend Erskines article, and edit the WSDC. I am a tad skeptical about Dorange and Purples COI too... at any rate, they obviously have different views about the notability of public speakers to most wikipedians JJJ999)
  • Keep. My reasons are the same as last time. This individual has both founded a world championship, and also been president of both a national and regional debating organisation in Australia. It's a well sourced article with a wide variety of references. A notable enough figure in the debate world for a Wikipedia article in my opinion (despite what JJJ999 says). Purple Watermelon 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, after reading through the history revisions and this entire nom, I've now come to the conclusion that it was done in bad faith. JJJ999 apparently does have something against the page and several authors, and it appears his prime reason for setting the afd is to be "vengeful" so to speak. I'd like to see this article kept so more time can be used for improvement. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Dorange and Purple want us to believe it is a serious world championship, yet simultaneously concede that it would be ludicrous for us to give a page to any of the winners of this comp, or best speakers, or other convenors, or any of the winners/best-speakers/convenors/founders of other debating comps which are bigger and more notable, have corporate sponsorship in the tens to hundreds of thousands and news coverage, ministers attending, etc (Australs, WUDC, All-Asians, Easters, Mace, etc). Such an admission would be a green light to thousands of debating bios (which have a history of being deleted in AfD's, witness Erik Eastaugh nom). They know this, so in an attempt to keep the article they have drawn an obviously false distinction between the significance of the "founder/1stConvenor" and everyone else ever involved with WSDC (not even the "first" winners, or the "first" best speaker). This evident double standard by its defenders says it all. I wouldn't even have that much of a problem keeping it if they were willing to concede pages for these people, but the argument that only Erskine of all of them can be worthy, that the winners of this comp are meaningless, but Erskine is notable, really does remove all credibility as far as I am concerned.JJJ999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Note- There is alot of talk about how it is a "world championship" and that makes it important, but this simply isn't so. The use of the term "world" does not connote significance. Nor has their been any explanation at all why he is notable. When I type the following into google ("Chris Erskine" World schools debating championship) I get 16 hits, a variation of this (replace World Schools debating championship with WSDC) gets 15 hits. A more generous search with the term debating gets 117, though they are still almost all of the blog/one-liner variety. Almost all of them are unimportant sources. If I types in "Kim Little", one of the many winners of the WUDC, and other terms like "debating" for example, I get what seems to be 800 hits (actually 335), including sources like the 7:30 report on page 1 (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Kim+Little%22+debating&btnG=Search&hl=en). Former world Champion Jeremy Brier returns what appears to be over 2000 ghits (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Jeremy+Brier%22+debating&btnG=Search&meta=). I could do the same trick with hundreds of debaters. I have to confess I am baffled at how someone like this would be "not-notable" in your minds, but someone like Erskine would be notable... it just smacks of the bizarre, and suggests partisanship and/or a personal relationship with him.JJJ999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can this just be looked at objectively. The person has done a great job in setting up a competition. Whilst that makes him notable in a sense, it doesn't satisfy the guidelines under WP:N for inclusion as an entry. Coupled with the fact that he wants it removed, I think the community should just honour that request. Assize 07:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination may be in bad faith, but the nomination is valid. This guy is not notable. All that is said is that he organised debate competitions for schoolkids, and is a barrister and organist. I cannot accept that there is any way he is notable, despite how hard the article tries. --Mkativerata 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG, but we might want to hold this open for another day. Bearian 19:29, 22 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 The Dresden Files. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. This game hasn't even been officially announced. However, deleting would not be optimal, since discussion of the proposed game ought to be mentioned at the novels' article, and in the future the article can be restarted if/when it's clearer the game will actually be coming out.Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dresden Files (role-playing game)

edit
The Dresden Files (role-playing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The expected future release of this game is not notable; the article itself has no content, context or analysis, despite being in development since 2004. --Gavin Collins 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that part. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are also two podcasts listed as well, at least one of which is independent of the game/authors. (Which should be integrated into the article as sources too.) And, yes, before it's mentioned, more references are appropriate. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Podcasts hardly seem reliable sources to me. SolidPlaid 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Here's one that seemingly talks to one of the owners of/writers for Evil Hat Productions. (I say "seemingly" as I haven't listened to it.) And this one says they talk to two of the writers (Rob Donoghue and Fred Hicks) of the game. It's not like they're talking to their friend's neighbor's hairdresser's dog walker. <shrug> (again). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for several reasons. One, it is spammy. Two, the sources are not reliable. Three, the game has not been demonstrated to be notable, since none of the sources are independent. Four, crystalballery. Furthermore, this AfD would not be so Keep-heavy if it weren't for the very active dispute between the nominator and some of the users voting for keep above. SolidPlaid 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons cited above, plus the game is currently entering the playtest phase, which is one of the final stages towards actual release. CBeilby 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gavin Collins placed Template:Notability, and Template:Primarysources just a little over two weeks before nominating this article for deletion. No significant changes were made to the article when he tagged it with AFD. I feel that Gavin is attempting to force cleanup on his schedule here. I cannot find a WP policy stating a time period for cleanup once an article has been tagged with one suggesting it needs it-- and two weeks between tagging for cleanup and deletion seems a bit quick on the trigger.Ukulele 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response When you created this article, deletion would always be a risk without proper sources, which predicted the game would be released last year. CBeilby has hightlighed a clear problem with this product: no clear release date has been announced. If an article fails WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, the concern not merely a matter of cleanup by me, it is down to you to take special care to ensure that the future release date is 100% verifiable and not speculation. --Gavin Collins 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter Response Deletion of any RPG-related content here certainly seems to be a risk lately, Gavin. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL clearly states that: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I am not attempting to be pedantic, but 100% certainty of release does not need to be established according to the policy you quoted. Nor do I feel that a consensus has been reached here regarding the subject as non-notable. I also feel that preparation for this release has been established in the article, references and external links. Ukulele 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've made a section on the Dresden Files main article called "Other Media" where I've written two sentences about the show and linked to its wiki article as well as added a subsection for the rpg that states that the rpg was announced, who's working on it and that there isn't a firm release date. I've used the official site and the 3rd party podcast as references. --Torchwood Who? 03:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Since when is it standard Wikipedia policy to have one article for all versions of a single property, particularly when they are in different media? --CBeilby 13:56. 19 October, 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.100.122 (talk)
Response to Response It's not policy, but it's done quite often when the property isn't notable enough on its own to warrant a seperate page. I added the mention of the TV series as a way to "pad" out the other media section so it was easier to find a home for the RPG. If you don't want it in there, that's okay... just edit it out and I won't fight you on it, but I'm still voting for Deletion on this particular aspect of Dresden.--Torchwood Who? 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of the refs and exlinks, only one is independent of the game. No other evidence of notability is supplied. Percy Snoodle 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps a merge would work with the Dresden Files main article, but it was never even considered. Wholesale ghosting of content is as about extreme as you can get on Wikipedia. I'm disappointed at how fast the deletion process is for RPG content lately. Cleanup tags can work if you let them. It certainly is a bit of a let down to come back from holiday to see your contributions on the precipice of oblivion because you weren't working fast enough as a contributor to suit another. IMHO there were several other avenues that should have been pursued, before nominating the AFD. Even stub articles like these are labors of love for Wikipedia-- they take time to make. This article was tagged with 'clean up' tags, and two weeks later deemed ready for the rubbish bin by the same person. Why is the article's talk page still empty..? Certainly a proposal to merge was a reasonable course of action. Even (gasp) letting the article sit a bit longer in it's current state does not seem unreasonable. It was indeed attracting other contributors who were actually adding or correcting content. I felt the process of moving from stub-with problems to good article was indeed under way-- just not fast enough it seems.Ukulele 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment The problem is, the more crystal ball gazing that is added to this article, the more spammy it looks. The reason is that the only sources for the game are the publishers and artists working on the project; the more you add, the more it looks like product placement. --Gavin Collins 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Well Gavin, since this article is about yet-to-be released game, you have the option of referring to any information about it as crystal ball gazing, but that doesn't mean it fits the spirit and meaning of the crystal ball gazing policy. I have added additional cited material from third-party sources-- one even in Portuguese ROFL. Because of your AFD, I have done this with a feeling of being under under the gun and working on YOUR schedule and I resent it. I feel you have used AFD to force cleanup in a timely manner, something for which AFD was never intended. You have demonstrated that you will nominate content for deletion while lacking the understanding of Wikipedia policy protecting it-- I am directly referring to the requests you made to delete the copyrighted images I uploaded with fair-use rationales. You argued that because they were copyrighted, the only way they could be used on Wikipedia was if I had a license!!! Another administrator had to step in, quickly decline your request and show you the policy protecting Wikipedia's fair-use of the images.-- after I all but begged you to look for the policy yourself to support your argument. Plainly, I feel that you jumped the gun on this AFD, and now that I have made a good-faith if not rushed effort to improve the article you now call it spammy. I am beginning to think that you will use any argument-- any interpretation of a policy at your disposal to ghost an article once you've nominated it. Damned if you do and damned if you don't rings true and familiar here.Ukulele 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, I apologize that many of my comments here would have better been posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins and I did not intend to drag this discussion into a Comment quagmire of a broader dispute. I know this is not a place to vote, but I have abstained from suggesting a Keep or Delete and simply wished to comment on what I feel is hasty nomination for AFD. I have worked on the The Dresden Files (role-playing game) today and added some additional references and external links, which I hope satisfy many of you. I believe in consensus and consider this a form of peer review and will hope for the best. I feel I have made my point here. Gavin, if you wish to respond to my last comment here, and I choose to counter respond, it will be on your RFCpage. I'm pretty sure I could have done without the sarcasm in my comments as well-- sincere apologies again. Ukulele 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments After Cleanup by Ukulele My biggest issue with the article is that there's no firm release date for the product. If it had a definite target date things would look more relevant. My second biggest issue is the sourcing. Although you've made a great effort, it's hard work because the product isn't in release and has no release date. There isn't a lot of coverage and the coverage that exists is either first-party or shakey. Take for example, another Sci-Fi Channel propoerty turned RPG, Stargate Stargate SG-1 (roleplaying game)... In my google results for "Stargate RPG" [84] the first two pages you see the official publisher, mentions of award nominations, fan pages for the RPG, player forums, retailer product list, etc. For Dresden RPG, in the first 3 pages of results I'm finding 18 first party sources, 3 wiki-entries, 4 message board / livejournal entries, 4 entries about the Dresden Files TV Series and 1 link about the FATE system. This just tells me that the game isn't ready for its own article at this time.--Torchwood Who? 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Torchwood Who?, you have a solid point. My only counter would be that Wikipedia does allow for unreleased games as Percy Snoodle correctly tagged it. However, the fact that the primary sources refuse to speculate on a release date is the weakest part of the article IMHO. Personally I believe I have satisfied notability by adding additional 3rd party sources, though one is in Portuguese (still laughing at that one) and some of them are podcasts, which does not satisfy at least one user taking part in this discussion. I'm not sure how I feel about them myself, but technically they are published 3rd party sources. The only argument on behalf of the {{future game|type=[[role-playing game]]}} tag I can make is that the game is indeed in the play testing phase and an application is available online. Of course play testing could go on for quite a while too, so my argument is weak. Yes, it is difficult finding really good independent sources on unreleased games, but most of the ones I found were published this year. Is it possible the article has enough to hang around a while with the {{notability}} tag for a bit longer? - Ukulele 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a hard call. If there was a release date or some kind of firm retail solicitations or something I'd probably overlook the sourcing issue. It just goes pretty far in to Crystal Balling when there's no actual date we're looking ahead to. I think Crystal says that we need some kind of evidence that the product is going to be released at some point. So without a release date or even a ballpark "season" it's hard to pin-down if the game is ever going to be finished. That's why I did the mention in the main Dresden article, so that there's a place where we mention the fact the game is in development... and whether the product ever gets released doesn't really matter. Maybe you could help expand the other media section of The Dresden Files? Notability and crystal doesn't have to be met if the info lives in that article. As long as the info is accurate and represents what is currently known about the rpg it shoudl be okay. Later on when more information exists someone can build a much better article for the RPG.--Torchwood Who? 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Response to Torchwood Who?. Should my peers deem this article not ready for Wikipedia, I will be happy to contribute some of the material to the main Dresden Files article and wait for a more solid release date to re-create or contribute to the separate RPG article, though I fear I may soon be back here to defend its notability-- the original intent of the AFD as stated by the nominator. - Ukulele 01:22, 22 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. Sandahl 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy efficiency store

edit
Energy-efficiency store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism, merely a dictionary definition. No indication of widespread use, 32 unique ghits. MER-C 08:55, 14 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 violation of WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 3

edit
Battlefield 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. MrStalker talk 08:48, 14 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 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clicklazy

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

Protologism, dictionary definition. 9 ghits. MER-C 08:44, 14 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. W.marsh 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Professional Organizers

edit
National Association of Professional Organizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Whilst I can find plenty of hits in searches, I can't find any which would afford this organisation notability in an encyclopaedic sense, thereby failing WP:V and WP:N Russavia 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because no reliable sources can be found to establish notability of the organisation in an encyclopaedic context, thereby failing verifiability. --Russavia 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article has been essentially a single sentence since its creation in October 2004. Three years later, there has been no expansion. A Google News search finds plenty of press releases, and is mentioned quite often in news articles, but I am unable to find any articles that are about the organization itself. -- Whpq 17:34, 18 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 based on below discussion, but I am making an editorial decision to redirect to Smoking#Smoking_in_culture, since this article has been around for a while and seems like a plausible search term. Redirect should not be undone with seriously addressing the below concerns (namely, lack of references). W.marsh 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking culture

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

I do not believe the page should be deleted, however it has been under attack by a single Wikipedia editor who repeatedly redirects the page to his own, without incorporating any of two years of edits by multiple editors, and when called on it, removes parts of the article to make it appear to have a different purpose than it truly does. We're trying to get it sourced, but his edits now become antagonistic. Bad faith use of WP:OWN, and I would like the value of this article decided by the Wikipedia community at large, rather than a single editor with an axe to grind. Chris 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been tagged as lacking sources and having generally poor article structure (and for a time essay-like content) since August of last year, and the only substantial contrubtions have been made by Chris himself. There was a conflict between me and Chris where I tried to make him either improve this article or to help work on the culture section of the main article smoking, by redirecting smoking culture there. So far, nothing has been achieved except creating bluster on talk:smoking culture. The latest edit, which provoked this AfD, was to insist on upholding the questionable attempt to limit the article to tobacco smoking, a process initiated by the since banned pro-smoking, pro-tobacco POV-pusher Naacats.

The biggest problem in this conflict is that Chris views this as an issue of "his" article vs. "my" article instead of focusing on content or verifiability. Personal prestige, not content quality and respect for readers, has been the re-occuring theme throughout this squabble.

Peter Isotalo 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply I tried to make him-listen to yourself! You've done nothing to improve the article, nor included unique points into the "main article"-merging might be appropriate, redirect without inclusion of anything is not. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing content that has been unsourced for over a year is very much within the reasonable limits of interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, wouldn't you agree? The community consensus is stipulated quite clearly in the sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The only editor who has really added and restored is you. You've been notified about the problem and given suggestion on how to fix it, yet you have done nothing of the sort. Why is it then my, or anyone else's, responsibility to amend the problem?
Peter Isotalo 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article emphasizes a smoking as a culture (or subculture) in society. Cultural examples are provided at smoking, but the author of smoking culture is not referring to mere examples in culture. The author is emphasizing a marked subculture of its own. Author emphasizes specialized and distinct artifacts designed for and supporting a culture not likely to be used by a mainstream culture. Mindlurker 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting smoking as a subculture of its own is very much original research.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a link to an article indicating that the concept of a "smoking culture" is not OR in the discussion page, it has a healthy and deep list of reference material, and the references appear to all come from notable sources. Mindlurker 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smoking is not really a subculture in itself, but an aspect of culture as a whole. It is very important to certain subcultures (bikers, rockers, rastas, beatniks, hippies, etc.) but cliques of human society that are based entirely around smoking itself are kinda rare.
Peter Isotalo 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply nobody is presenting it as a subculture, but it has developed a culture around it. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though not a bad idea for a Wikipedia topic, this one has never attempted to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It's unsourced, heavy on original research, and mostly an essay. There have been good books about the history of cigarette smoking, such as Robert Sobel's They Satisfy. This one avoided deletion on the grounds that it could be sourced, but nobody (including myself) has the time to fix this fixer-upper. Mandsford 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP has polices that this does not meet. And, no refs even though it has been tagged for a year. - Rjd0060 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- This article is well written, and while a little lacking in sources is mostly unbiased (especially compared to other articles on the subject such as smoking. 75.84.99.131 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the presence of this diff among the anonymous users short history of contributions, I'd say that this is a sockpuppet of User:Naacats.
Peter Isotalo 12:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is not a fork, which implies it was broken off another article-it was written completely independently. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I meant it is entirely redundant.--victor falk 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be redundant if the "parent article" actually contained material from this article, which it does not. If it were properly merged, rather than multiply redirected without adding anything, then the issue would be solved. Chris 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read smoking a little closer, because a lot, if not most, of what smoking culture describes is already mentioned there.
Peter Isotalo 09:37, 17 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 without a clear consensus after many days at AfD. A suggestion to rename or move must be made elsewhere. Bearian 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional career totals

edit
Traditional career totals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete – the article has been created by someone from the Association of Cricket Statisticians (ACS) in breach of this concept, particularly as the notability of the ACS itself is questionable. The article attempts to show that there is an "issue" about cricket statistics when in fact there is not. Wisden is the definitive and authoritative source for all cricket statistics and is universally recognised as such; the ACS is a fringe group and the "issue" itself only exists among a small number of its own members, most of whom recognise Wisden. The ACS has no authority re the status of matches and its opinions carry no weight at all; any cricket writer's opinion counts just as much. The writer of the article is using Wikipedia to promote the ACS. As it says on this edit screen: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service". Fiddlers Three 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NB I am the author of the article. To suggest that Wisden is more definitive and authoritative than the ACS is quite incorrect. Neither has any authority regarding the status of matches and never has had. Both have their own right to publish their own figures as has any one else. Wisden is not 'universally recognised' otherwise the ACS wouldn't produce different figures. There continues to be an issue regarding WGs figures. Both sets continue to used in various publications. It is not just the ACS that uses ACS figures, many other publications do. Also note that Wikipedia had the ACS figures for a long time until changed on 13 August 2007. It is a poor article but this whole paragraph by Fiddlers Three is proposing to delete it for all the wrong reasons. Nigej 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are no 'universally accepted totals' for WG. To suggest so is quite false. Nigej 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Whilst I think that it is a pity that ACS have gone against tradition as to which matches are accepted as first-class, and hence have come up with different career totals for some players, one can't ignore that their figures have been adopted by many authorities. Both of the major online cricket sites, CricketArchive and Cricinfo, use their figures, and most Wiki player biographies take their statistics from one or other of those sites. Like it or not, ACS are far more than a "fringe group". The article is I think useful, factual and does not push a particular POV. I can't see any promotion of the ACS in it. I should add that I am not an ACS member and have no personal axe to gring. JH (talk page) 08:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "heavy contributor"? I made three minor edits, correcting typos and so forth. Does that debar me from having an opinion? JH (talk page) 13:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. JH has indeed made minor edits only and is perfectly entitled to state his opinion here. BlackJack | talk page 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since Wisden itself has commented on the ACS's alternative view, they appear to be significant rather than a wild-eyed fringe. I see no need to rush to suppress one side in this pissing contest. Colonel Warden 09:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we have an intelligent discussion without the use of infantile expressions like "pissing contest", please? JH has put forward a sensible and reasoned argument so why can't you do the same? BlackJack | talk page 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing the intelligent discussion. You use hyperbole like universally accepted which is obviously incorrect, as the article explains. You seem to be pushing a POV - hence my comment. Colonel Warden 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a "pissing contest" in the sense of being largely meaningless but liable to create some controversy. Nigej 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —AMBerry (talk | contribs) 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fiddlers Three. While I don't know much about cricket, I do know a bit about sports fans who believe that the "official" stats are deficient in some way, and who, not surprisingly, have a better idea that happens to be of their own invention. From what I can figure, stats in "first-class" matches make it into the books, and the authors of this article disagree with the authorities about which matches are first class. The analogy that I can think of is if someone were to include spring training or in-season exhibition games in looking at Mark McGwire's and Sammy Sosa's 1998 home run output. Mandsford 14:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't much like this article, and its title is pretty daft (Whose tradition? Whose careers? Totals of what?). But the fact that there is a divergence in published stats between sources that are widely used and widely referred to in Wikipedia is relevant and should be explained somewhere. If someone reads the W. G. Grace article and gets interested enough in the man to follow some of the references and then finds different stats quoted outside Wikipedia, then they're going to doubt Wikipedia's reliability. The articles on the individual cricketers affected ought also to refer to the disparity between their career stats as reported by different sources. All told, an article about how this dispute has arisen and its effects would be helpful: I'd prefer the title was changed, though. BTW I'm not sure how far we get by rubbishing the work of the ACS or by over-inflating the role of Wisden in determining first-class status for matches. For the record, I would always primarily use the accepted "traditional" figures and I am not and never have been a member of ACS. Johnlp 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a very heavily condensed version with Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. It may be a vaguely notable alternative version of cricket statistics, but this article is poorly-titled and significantly more detailed (the descriptions of the matches, for example) than is necessary. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename the article, although it could beneficially be condensed. The fact that there is no agreed definition of what counts as a first-class cricket match is important, and I am impressed with the way that this article manages to describe the controversy in a NPOV way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) and 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The ACS is notable and their opinion on cricket stats carries weight. Their stance on this is notable and easily verifiable using RS. Even if, as individuals, we might deplore the schism (as I do), our role is to narrate disputes, not arbitrate on them. --Dweller 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best solution would be to merge this article with Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. Perhaps some of the early English domestic matches, before a bright-line definition of "first class" was agreed, should have "first class" status; perhaps not - Wikipedia does not need to reach a conclusion: just report the debate. But there is certainly scope for an article discussing how a match came to be treated (or stop being treated) as first-class - consider, for example, the South African rebel tour matches, which lost their "first class" status in 1993, and the non-white South African domestic matches in the 1970s and 1980s. -- !! ?? 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Retitle the article. What defines a "First Class match", and "When was the first First Class Match played" are crucial questions for cricket statistics. Both the ACS and Wisden can cite supporting documentation for their position. (The person who wants to know why two sets of statistics are cited will not think of looking for "Traditional Career Totals".) jonathon 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without condensing. The status of early matches is a major point of contention and this article explains the confusion re. Grace et al in a very comprehensive and NPOV fashion. The "new" figures for Grace and co is hardly a minority view. It is what is followed by Cricinfo (the most popular website on any sport, incidentally) and Cricketarchive which are the top two sites for cricket statistics on the web. You can see the "new" figures scattered around elsewhere as well - as in this bbc article (BBC themselves use conventional figures elsewhere as here). I also notice that Indian Cricket which is (was ?) considered as the standard cricket yearbook in India uses the "new" stats in its records sections in its most recent (2004) edition. Tintin 06:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised nomination to keep, retitle and completely rewrite as per my comments on WT:CRIC. Fiddlers Three 07:04, 17 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. Jbeach sup 04:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls V

edit
The Elder Scrolls V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The listed sources don't confirm this game's existence, and the first source is dated from March 2006, before The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was released, so it can't be considered reliable enough (plans can change considerably in that huge a space of time). I have tried finding a confirmation of this game's existence, but only some speculation from fansites and bulletin boards, as I found here. L337 kybldmstr 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think we can safely assume that this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Since the company is working with another title, I think this game's development will be postponed for a while.--Lenticel (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that this game is in development. As Lenticel says above, Bethsoft is in the middle of developing Fallout 3. Even the nominated article says that there's nothing happening with TES:V. Yngvarr 11:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a case of WP:CRYSTAL the article can be recreated if and when the game is announced TonyBallioni 15:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal balling, should another Elder Scrolls game be made there'll be more reliable sources than you can eat. Someone another 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I suspect much of the information in the article is true, considering that how Bethesda operates and it has already Trademarked the name Skyrim, there is no official statement, and none of it is verifiable. --Ratwar 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete!!! Geez people, what's the harm in leaving something up people are going to be curious about? Read the sources listed thouroughly. It's definitely on the slate and Bethesda has plans for it. The quote on the page is from 2006. There are more recent sources saying it's definitely in the works. for example, source and source.

Jpagel

The first page is just rumour (with a flat denial from the actual Bethesda guy) and is out of date anyway. The same guy admits "there are no immediate plans right now" in the second article and even the journo says "don't expect to hear much about Elder Scrolls V for a couple years". When the reliable sources say 'we don't really know anything' then it's an obvious indication there's nothing to write about.
The subject of the article does not tangibly exist, so there shouldn't be an article. Readers looking for the latest gaming gossip should go to the videogame sites that grind the rumour mills, that's what they're there for.Someone another 02:03, 17 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 09:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toussaint Chevallier

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

fails BLP, also only notable for one event Phgao 07:13, 14 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 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo L. Vito M.D.

edit
Reynaldo L. Vito M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This fails BLP as it does not cite sources and I am not sure to its truthfulness. Phgao 07:09, 14 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--JForget 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Jacobs

edit
Thomas M. Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. This person competed in one olympic games and came nowhere. There are no independent sources, only the placing tables for the event. Those are sources for the event, not the individual. Of the five Google hits for Thomas M. Jacobs +skier, there are only Wikipedia, mirrors and lists. No independent sources cited, and I can't find any. Cruftbane 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not sure what 'anc dame nowhere' means but this man was an Olympian and therefore he competed at the highest level of his sport, so he clearly passes the notability threshold. Events which happened before his holiness Al Gore invented the Internet still happened. Nick mallory 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but Wikipedia holds people notable if they competed at the highest level of their sport and, by definition, the Olympics counts as that. 124.183.76.5 10:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a misreading of the notability guideline. The policies which apply here are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT a directory. The notability guideline is correct in saying that if someone competed in the Olympics they will probably have received sufficient non-trivial independent coverage that we cvan have an article, but if they have not received that coverage, then we can't have an article, even if they placed a lot higher than 66th. Cruftbane 11:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will the sources mentioned above do? There are no less than seven sources given in the article now, are you going to withdraw this nomination? 124.183.76.5 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has verifiable and independent sources. I'm no expert at sports but I think that if you were chosen to represent your country at the Olympics, you must be skillful enough and known enough in your field of expertise. --Lenticel (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable and independent sources? Great. They aren't in the article. Perhaps you could add them. Cruftbane 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources listed here in the Afd before I voted. Don't you think you're getting a little bit too passionate?--Lenticel (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well isn't this interesting. The creator has been canvassing for support, but has not actually taken the trouble to expand the article beyond a stub that positively asserts non-notability. Have any of the above editors, who evidently know much more about the subject than the article says, considered expanding the article? Because it really is pretty pointless citing loads of really interesting stuff in an AfD and then not including it in the article. All that will happen is it will get tagged again and again until somebody makes itr more than a directory entry on a losing athlete. And losing by a wide margin at that. Cruftbane 11:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator asked for my help in gathering sources (and not !vote-stacking) before you nominated the article for deletion, so accusations of canvassing are pretty unfair. For your information, I'm working on rewriting the article at the moment (offline), so haven't updated the article within minutes of locating a few sources. --Canley 11:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no question that competing in the Olympics passes WP:BIO, so this was a waste of time. Please be aware of the notability guidelines, and if you don't like them, start a discussion on the guideline page instead. --Dhartung | Talk 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - representing his country at the Olympic Games is certainly good enough to pass WP:BIO in my book. Consider a rename to "Thomas Jacobs" without the middle initial. - fchd 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olympic sports participation means that he was at the top of the class for the country he represented. Coming in 21 puts him in the top 21 in that event in the world. Article can do with a rewrite. jonathon 20:55, 15 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. Phgao 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Sorry.net

edit
AfDs for this article:
I'm Not Sorry.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

references are only self references, thus non notable website and should technically be A7 speedied Phgao 06:00, 14 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. Phgao 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prestonsburg High School

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

non notable school Phgao 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Closed as Keep Phgao 10:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you look at my changes? SolidPlaid 06:41, 14 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 Placebo Effect 06:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medbury school

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

non notable school ... Phgao 05:57, 14 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. —Verrai 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holder Elementary School

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

Non notable school.... <end> Phgao 05:52, 14 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. W.marsh 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlees Junior and Infant School

edit
Crowlees Junior and Infant School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable primary school, a least as far as my internet searching skills can reach. SolidPlaid 05:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I doubt that you will find another school in the country where not only is the overall assessment outstanding but every component of the inspection is also outstanding - now that's notable :-) TerriersFan 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notabilty is not inherited". Every notable person must have gone to some school. We might as well say "a school in a postal district that ends with '6' gets to have an article in wikipedia"--victor falk 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across very many school AfDs it has been accepted that notable alumni count towards notability; not because of inheritance but because people interested in the notable person are likely to be interested in their schools. However, that is a by the way, this article meets WP:N because of multiple sources and as I say above, it is possibly the only school in the country with an outstanding component in every area of inspection. That goes to the heart of how good the school is. TerriersFan 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know what a grade school is but if you mean a primary school then the answer is - it depends on the individual. In this case, and we are not setting precedents but dealing with a specific instance, we have a school that is strong in drama and I have added another sourced link of a further connection. TerriersFan 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school may now be barely notable. I have problems with some of the individual claims for notability above, so I'm speaking out against them because I don't want them to be precedents for notability. SolidPlaid 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst this would normally be a delete vote. I was pleasantly surprised by the article, it asserts its notability, provides very good references (which cannot be said for 90% of school articles) and covers the topic in a basic manner. Twenty Years 15:47, 21 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. W.marsh 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nody Parker

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

This is a non-notable biography, actually it reads more of an obituary. There is enough of an assertation to fail CSD notability guidelines and so here we are. I can't find any reliable sources outside of the external links in the article that assert Parker's significant contribution to either baseball or education. Keegantalk 05:41, 14 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 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hill Infant School

edit
Park Hill Infant School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I looked online, there is nothing notable about this school for 5 to 7 year olds. SolidPlaid 05:35, 14 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 Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hample

edit
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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

delete-No notability, no evidence of it JJJ999 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the books written & edited, and the peer-reviewed articles and omitted the conference proceedings & papers, which was originally put in =just as Iridescent says- as a thoughtless copy & paste. I have also added that he is editor, not merely on the editorial board, of a major journal--which normally counts a good deal for academic notability. Not all associate professors are notable--it depends on the publications and scholarly record. His seems very substantial. "Rhetoric" or "Communications" is a very broad field as I see it, and notability in this is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply- I have no such history, and half the stuff you've discussed is not even debating related (RD Reynolds? WTF?) This is not a debating related article anyway, it is about some professor, who also apparently does rhetoric classes. I have no idea who he is, or what influence he has on debating (if any), in point of fact I've never heard of him. I nominated this because merely being an academic isn't sufficient. Every academic has a few publications at least in some journal or another, almost all of them are on one board or another. There is nothing really specific or sufficiently noteworthy for him to be added to Wikipedia. I mean, if he was Editor of the NY times, he'd be a notable figure. "Some journals"... come on. the two main "Journals" he is editor for are not even on wikipedia, which is the first hint of notability right there. the Journals are not notable, but he is? Here is one of these "journals", it lacks even its own webpage as near as I can tell, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03637751.asp, rather it is hosted on some other site. And on it we see it is published 4 times a year, and the group who publishes it has 7000 members... yeh, it's right up there with the Monash Debating Review... pfft. And this is even funnier, they are actually calling for contributions from the public here: http://www.natcom.org/pubs/CM/policyCM.htm, only someone with no concept of journalism would consider this to be a professional publication.JJJ999 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every academic has a few publications-- the average in most fields is about two articles, in some fields a book instead. Not many in the humanities have as high a number as this -- 42 peer reviewed articles and two books. Many academics are on an editorial board or two, and that is not by itself notable--but being editor of a journal is another matter & is a position of both prestige and power. Most academic journals in the humanities are published 4 or 6 times a year & 7000 members is pretty good in the specialized areas of the humanities. The T&F web site is the site for the publisher of the journal, which is where most journals have their web sites. Most of the notable journals are not in WP yet- like other areas in WP they are being done according to the number of interested editors, not the intrinsic importance. We don't have nearly enough editors for fields like this. "some professor", "also does rhetoric classes", are terms of denigration, not argument. And, most tellingly I have no idea who he is DGG (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annoyed Reply- those are not terms of denigration, merely facts. He is just "some professor", he does "some rhetoric classes" according to this article (almost no details given) and I definitely had "no idea who he is". I now have some idea who he is, and that is some middle of the road academic. My father is not an academic, and even he has 3 books, and credit or chapters in others, and plenty of papers. Every serious academic has a book, every serious professor has dozens of peer reviewed articles. Rick Kuhn is a good analogy for "bottom tier professor". He is crazy marxist professor at the ANU of no notability, who has a self hosted page which discusses why Marx and Engels thought bird patterns were relevant to communism. In other words, a nutter. Yet he has more books than this guy, and probably as many papers. The important question is the sorts of journals he is published in, and the number of copies these books sell. In the absence of any evidence of notability for either, he fails. You have to provide the evidence, not me, because you claim he's notable. Nothing in a preliminary scan of his works indicates he is, and I await proof to the contrary. 7000 is a pitiful number for a supposed major journal, and that's 7000 members of the sub-org who runs it (no mention of what token fee they pay), lord knows what the circulation of this quarterly magazine which has to call to the general public for material is. To give you an eg, here is an awful, totally unnotable academic, who would never qualify for a serious page here. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/rick/pub.htm Anyone with knowledge of this guy will tell you he is totally crazy and unnotable, yet there is his CV. All academics do is write articles, 40 is hardly an impressive #, you need to show they are notable articles or journals.JJJ999 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment JJJ999, I understand your surprise. People who are not in academia often under-/overestimate what scientists do and the importance of their stuff. 7000 subscribers for a scientific journal is huge. There are very few journals that have as many subscribers, most count them in the hundreds, not thousands. That doesn't mean only those hundreds read the journals: many of these subscribers are libraries and most academics have access to almost all important journals in their fields. As for the number of articles, 40 peer reviewed articles is actually quite a lot. DGG seems to be better acquinted with the humanities than I am (I'm a life scientist), but I can assure you that many scientists will be happy if they finish their careers having published that many papers. As for editorial board positions, I actually think they are more important than DGG asserts. Take my field, Neuroscience. The Web of Science lists 200 Neuroscience journals. Say all have about 30 board members, that gives about 6000 slots world wide. Many of the more prestigious scientists will be on more than 1 board, sometimes even dozens. So if I say that there are 4000 neuroscientists that are on at least one board, that's probably an overestimate. I don't know how many neuroscientists there are world wide. But you get an idea if you note that the (US) Society for Neuroscience annual meetings attract about 35,000 participants. There must be a couple of hundred thousands neuroscientists in the whole world, so only about 1% of all neuroscientists are on 1 or more boards. I bet the situation is similar in the humanities. So if this guy is on 10 boards, that's pretty notable.... --Crusio 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I just don't agree I'm afraid. As for comparing this to neuroscience... you guys keep giving generalistic replies about "in other fields this would be alot" that just get away from the point, you need to show that the journals or articles he does are notable, not that they theoretically could be if he was a neurosurgeon... I await this proof, but it isn't coming.JJJ999 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crusio's point here is that people in the medical sciences typically publish a greater number of papers than in other subjects. This many papers for someone in neuroscience (not neurosurgery, by the way--that's a different profession) might well be notable--but for the humanities, its rather sensational. DGG (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) At no stage have you shown there is a circulation of 7000, rather the (non-notable) body which hosts the website claims to have 7000 members (whether they pay or not is unclear). There is no evidence the magazine even sells 7000 copies per year, nor if that is 7000 for all 4 issues, or 7000 per issue, there is no evidence you have provided.
b) Even if there were, 7000 per issue is a pitiful circulation, and would not be sufficient to attain wiki notability. You need to establish who are on these boards, that they are notable, and/or that his books were notable enough. You have not done that at any stage despite my requests, and despite clear evidence that he is less published than a crackpot from a mid-tier uni in Australia. The arguments made by your friend are pure assertion, or utterly irrelevant. Reason magazine provides all their content free on their website. They are a niche magazine dealing with Libertarian ideals. they have a circulation of 60,000- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_magazine, "Scientific American (informally abbreviated to "SciAm") had a monthly circulation of roughly 555,000 US and 90,000 international as of December 2005.[1]". How bout the rest of the science market? From wiki I notice the following science magazines (the ones I found which listed circulation, also dwarfed it. "National Geographic magazine won the American Society of Magazine Editors' prestigious General Excellence Award in the over two million circulation", Popular Science gets 1.6 mill circ (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Popular+science%22+circulation&meta=), The Sketical Inquirer has between 50K and 120K apparently... "Seed" magazine, a new one, has 105,000 circulation. Where is the evidence this is notable? You haven't provided anything, from a website, to circulation to evidence of even professionalism (one of them calls to the public for contributions... it reads like the local MacMuffin Rag. JJJ999 06:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JJJ999, I think you fail to appreciate the difference between scholarly journals and periodicals aimed at a general public, such as Scientific American. Those journals have large numbers of subscribers. They are also affordable. Most scholarly journals cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year to subscribe to. Only some have reduced rates of anywhere between 50 and 200 bucks for personal subscriptions. They publish highly technical articles, in which only specialists in that field would be interested, not the general public. The WoK list consists of the most prestigious (and certainly notable) journals in the different scientific fields. They list over 6000 different scientific journals (and, yes, Scientific American is included, but ranks not very high). Knowing the scientific publishing world from closer up, I would be amazed if there were more than a handful of scientific journals with circulations above, say, 2000. Nature and Science, the two top journals in all fields, probably don't even come close to 100,000. In short, for a journal aimed at a general public a circulation of 7000 is indeed not verty notable, as you say. But for a scientific scholarly journal, that is enormous. (Some of the hottest journals in my field, neuroscience, count there subscriptions in the hundreds.... And they are definitely notable, with Nobel Prize winners on their boards and such). As for your comment hgher up about these jurnals "not even having their own websites", that is absolutely normal. Publishers have websites and list their journals on those sites. Taylor and Francis (and their imprint Routledge) are a very respectable publisher. The "call for papers" on the website of "Argumentation and Advocacy" is completely standard, too, for scholarly journals. It indicates which type of papers can be submitted. If you look at the editor's report, you can see that the rejection rate is almost 50% (20/45), which is rather high and indicates that this is a journal that gets enough submissions to afford them to be critical and only pick the best. As far as I am concerned, this discussion has gone on long enough. Let's close already and keep. --Crusio 10:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • and again- a) You haven't shown what the circulation or notability for any of his journals is, you just keep saying "if it is 7000, we might assume that is high", b) Generalistic remarks like "7000 will often be high" tells us nothing about whether these specific journals are notable, the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence for this, not more generalised replies from different fields, and c) The facts I present if anything indicate they are not serious at all, you cite 50% rejection as though it is a high number... anyone with the merest understanding of professional journalism can tell you it is not.JJJ999 11:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JJJ999, I may not know much about "professional journalism", but I do know a lot about scientific publishing. Apparently, you do not. Cirtculation is absolutely NO indication at all about whether a scientific journal is notable, that is my whole point above. Scientists access journals through libraries, nowadays mostly through electronic web portals. So whereas I subscribe to only a few scientific journals myself, I follow a few dozen journals on a regular basis to keep up with developments in my field of study. 7000 Would be huge, but if it's just a couple of hundred, that would not mean that the journal is not notable. One journal that you heaped your scorn upon, Communication Monographs, is ranked 16/44 in the category "Communication", according to Thompson/ISI. That's very respectable and notable, the journal should have it's own page on Wikipedia if it doesn't have one yet. I am sorry, but your frequent references to "professional journalism" when talking about scholarly journals indicate that you are not familiar with scientific publishing. I gingerly suggest that you get familiar with the subject before commenting on it further. At this point I feel that this discussion is not very productive any more and this will be my last posting to this AfD. --Crusio 12:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notability looks ok, but only the important journal articles (if any) should be listed. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the above conversation, most of which occurred after I stated my opinion, I feel I should reaffirm my position, and also second Crusio's comments. Academic journals generally have a small number of (mainly institutional) subscribers. Consider, for instance, this journal (which also does not have a Web site of its own), which charges over $6000 for yearly subscriptions. Additionally, a publicly viewable "Call for Manuscripts" is not a solicitation of articles from the general public, as jjj999 has repeatedly claimed. Consider, for instance, this Call for Manuscripts for a book series on computational science and engineering issued by SIAM. I am also slightly concerned that the canvassing warning posted at the top of this page seems to have been added not because there was actually any canvassing, but as an attempt to discredit shorter comments. This seems not to assume good faith. Although Hample's field is not my own, a good case has been made for his notability. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article requires major cleanup, but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor.carey (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not my area, but an Editor-in-chief of one journal who is on the ed board of ten more seems to meet WP:PROF criteria 1. Espresso Addict 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, it is my opinion that this person does meet WP:PROF guideline. Yamaguchi先生 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. --S.dedalus 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • baffled comment- per all above? Per all above has not given any explanation of why this stuff is notable, and much doubt has been shown that it is. This sort of one line vote is exactly why I place that notice, and I hope the Mod ignores it...JJJ999 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "That notice" also asks people to "assume good faith". --Crusio 10:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's obvious, and unfortunate, which way this is going. Ugh.JJJ999 06:25, 21 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 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal (video game)

edit
Infernal (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about an apparently nn video game Carlossuarez46 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While that makes sense, why hasn't the refrences issue been addressed in the last year since it has been tagged? - Rjd0060 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD isn't clean-up and there's no inbuilt timescale for article building. Someone another 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it another way, since we're having a discussion. Deleting an article as non-notable asserts that there are not enough reliable sources available to sustain an article on a particular topic. It's not a definitive statement that there are NO sources and that it will NEVER be notable, but comes to the conclusion that these sources are not apparent. Having agreed this, the article is deleted. Now, recreation of the article means that whoever does so has to go out of their way to prove that they're not just recreating something which is not wanted on WP. That's something more than a lot of article writers have to do just for starters. If someone were to recreate that article, unless the previous article was absolutely useless or consisted of nothing but a few sentences, then they're retreading old ground just to get back to where we were. It's for that reason that the onus is on the nominator to take reasonable measures to make sure something legitimate isn't getting flushed down the pan.
Another problem is that stubs are part of the evolutionary scale of articles, countless if not most articles start that way. Upon seeing some basic groundwork taken care of, other contributors can be encouraged to chip away at the article. If there's no article there anymore, there's no reason to chip at it. When it comes to referencing (as with the article lead), there's little motivation to do it when there's not much of an article to reference or write a lead for. Removing unreferenced stubs from WP wholesale would just deplete the project of future work.
Here's an example of a short/unwikified article on the 2nd of this month - it's not brilliant but there's material there to be worked with. Here's the same article today - still not brilliant, but a sight better. What happened? Me. That article has been sat there since November 2005, nearly two years, and its taken this long for references to be provided and some serious wikification to take place. That game has sources a lot more difficult to locate than the one we're discussing. Where would that article be if it had been pushed through AFD? Nowhere, because I wouldn't have started from scratch. Same principle, deleting articles on individual subjects is the last resort. Someone another 00:59, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Core

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

Appears to be a neologism. I'm not aware of this term being used to describe any subgenres of punk, and Google doesn't turn anything up. Chubbles 04:58, 14 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 Deleted Wikipedia is not for promotional use, Youtube, while a notable website, does not imply merit in the assertation of notability because the user is award winning within the site itself. No external reliable sources of notability to be had. Keegantalk 05:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Thorp

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

Lack of Notability Wisdom89 04:47, 14 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 Anthony Appleyard. W.marsh 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Forster

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

This is a procedural nomination as a prod was removed without comment. The reason given on the prod was "no evidence of coverage by published sources", i.e. not-notable. Malcolmxl5 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy. - Rjd0060 17:18, 14 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 Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean H. Zimmerman

edit
Jean H. Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated prod. No obvious notability for this executive beyond a nice mention in her alumni magazine. (Creator is Wren21 (talk · contribs), an apparent sockpuppet of WOverstreet (talk · contribs), indef blocked for incivility.) Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 14 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 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Haitzler

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

Lacks WP:N Chealer 04:04, 14 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 09:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biffole

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, neologisms, or dictionary entries. Pick one. shoy 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you !voted twice Chubbles 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The interesting part is her two different "votes" were for different things. - Rjd0060 14:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second "vote" was meant for a different debate. I just got my tabs mixed up in firefox and didn't take the time to make sure I was on the right one. meshach 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh.. I see. - Rjd0060 17:15, 14 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 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ellis

edit

Article is a hoax Eric444 03:44, 14 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equine Positional Release

edit
Equine Positional Release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't an advert for a specific service. I wanted to speedy it, but to be honest I can't justify that. Opinions chaps? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about the ongoing development of osteopathic derived techniques and as such should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.23.158 (talk) 03:51, 14 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 Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sloan (Chad Vader)

edit
Matt Sloan (Chad Vader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

YouTube celebrity. Appeared in a notable YouTube film, but notability is not inherited. shoy 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the following for the same reason:

I'll have to check with my NYT spy before I nominate an article for AFD next time. :) shoy 16:05, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (film)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Okay, we have a director. Great. We still have no actors, filming information (as required by WP:MOVIE), or release date. shoy 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To add to my recommendation, the sole citation in the AfD'd article relies on the latest news from CHUD.com, whose webmaster relies on "an old and trusted scooper named Tailgunner Joe". This so-called update is not verifiable content from a reliable source, and thus there is no accurate information about this film's impending production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:19, 21 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 09:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AmateurLogic.tv

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

Non-notable website, despite the claims of notability which look like they were put in there in order to forestall an AfD. Corvus cornix 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wish to query what appears to be a inconsistent policy re deletions by wikipedia.

Essentially this appears to be based on a unstated perception that IPTV shows are less notable than say cable or community tv shows.

Now if wikipedia doesn't want to regard media of this kind as notable so be it but it should have a specific policy stating why this is so. Shows like Hak5, Ctrl-Alt-Chicken are relevant to the audiences they serve as shown by the thousands of viewers who regularly watch Youtube or download episodes from websites.

In any event shows such as Amateurlogic are of equal if not greater relevance than cable tv and community tv shows which are included in the following wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_community_access_television_programs

Arguably Amateurlogic should have been listed there as well. It also arguably should be listed an an example of Australian (partly) culture.

As stated elsewhere I am not that fussed that the article gets deleted but I feel there should be a consistent application of policy regarding deletions and what constitutes notability. Further the inherent bias against IPTV shows vs community tv and cable tv shows in notability considerations needs to be discussed.

Pberrett 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether there is other crap on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether or not this article has proven its notability. Please address this article in this discussion, only. Corvus cornix 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources listed to verify the content.Ifit is the first internationally syndicated IPTV production, there should be independent documentation of that fact somewhere.jonathon 20:02, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education directory

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

I would call this spam. It defines a term to describe an online service, then links to 5 commercial websites offering this service. If it was a more notable type of online service then it might be okay, but this just seems fishy. The websites don't look like they took too much work to create, and seem to list diploma mills, although I didnt look very much through them.

Comment There is no main page that relates to this article Dbiel (Talk) 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that main page...--victor falk 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstandig Dbiel (Talk) 03:03, 19 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. W.marsh 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santhipuram, Kerala

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

I don't believe Wikipedia generally considers post offices to be worthy of individual articles, but as I'm not familiar with the postal system of India, I'm bringing this to AFD in case I've missed something. JavaTenor 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :)--Victor falk 22:34, 14 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 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic displacement

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

This appears to be a term someone made up one day. In August 2007, someone put a speedy delete tag on it, and an admin removed a few hours later with no explanation; perhaps the nomination had not been completed properly. I did a Google and a Google Scholar search on this term and got no meaningful hits. The only hits on google appeared to be mirrors of this site or were mentions of the phrase created after this article was created. Jeff Dahl 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is basically a neologism, therefore it should not be merged. Jeff Dahl 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is research or synthesis, which this is, then it gets deleted, not merged, even if the content "makes sense." Jeff Dahl 16:11, 17 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 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15 days

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

Almost no content, and notability can be disputed. This Google Search turns up only places to buy the album (well, mostly download it), and since the article ANTAGEN is being put up for deletion, this article should probably be too. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:46, 14 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. W.marsh 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Byrnes

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

Even if referenced, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Bands that article claims he has connections to make no mention of him in their articles. Brewcrewer 01:25, 14 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 delete as pure vandalism. Ginkgo100talk 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris feunekes

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

I could not find a reliable source supporting what the article says. It's probably a joke, especially since the sole contributor's user name is identical with the last name of the subject. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 00:58, 14 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 and WP:SALT due to several re-creations of this and related articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANTAGEN

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

This band with one self-produced album has only two possible donors of notability; their claim to have been produced by Ryan Greene and their appearance in the Warped Tour 2005. I can't verify either of those through the relevant Wikipedia articles, at Ryan Greene's website here or at the official Warped Tour website here. The claim to have been produced by Ryan Greene is widespread and I actually believe it, just can't prove it -- I can't find anything to substantiate their assertion of having been on the Warped Tour. Accounting4Taste 00:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per W guice's comment, make that a delete and salt ... and possibly block the author. Blueboy96 12:33, 15 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. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleido360

edit
Kaleido360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Technically it asserts notability, but the website only went online a few days ago. WP:WEB and WP:CRYSTAL. Alksub 00:05, 14 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 Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations of British situation comedies

edit
List of locations of British situation comedies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't get why having this list is useful. It's an indiscrimate collection of some information arranged in an indiscrimate way. Relevant information should be/is in the respective articles. The JPStalk to me 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of an article on list of fictional Cambridge colleges, I think this one more than justifies its presence! DavidFarmbrough 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems complete at useful. This is far from complete. Users wanting this information will search for the specific programme. The JPStalk to me 09:49, 19 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. ARticle was deleted by User:Bearcat--JForget 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wingate

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

Unsourced but detailed account of a legal dispute by a party to that dispute. Much the same text was added to several other articles by the same author but has been removed. There has been some media coverage of the events. Because it deals with a legal dispute, this article would have to meet a very high standard of referencing before it could be kept. It is also not really a biographical article, so a change of title would also be necessary. gadfium 18:35, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_14&oldid=1081101391"