Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 8 October 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Everyones Internet. The naming of the resulting article can be decided once the merge is complete.

The Planet Internet Services

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

Web host company fails WP:CORP, was tagged speedy as advertising, but seems just short of blatant on that score. Carlossuarez46 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was Delete--JForget 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland

edit
British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inherently unverifiable article about a state that does not yet exist, that is supposed to come about as a result of a referendum that has not yet even been scheduled to take place. Russ (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barthism

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

Alleged "philosophical concept" but skirts around defining it. Probable hoax. At best non-notable. -- RHaworth 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists

edit
Committee of Concerned Journalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination; I've just removed a {{prod}} on this ("Non-notable group, with no sources. PRODed once before... but seems to have gone..."), as this is clearly inaccurate; a brief google-skim shows over 60,000 hits, including plenty of apparent reliable sources. I'm about to go off for six days and am very unlikely to have time to expand/rescue this before the prod expires, so bringing it over here to let someone else check the sources and see if this actually is expandable/rescuable. (Incidentally, the "prodded once before" is inaccurate - there's nothing in the deletion log & no deleted edits in the history.) Despite my procedurally nominating this for deletion, I (provisionally pending checking of the apparent sources) !vote keep. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Anaclet

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. The article states that he's played in the FA Cup, but there are many amateur players that play in the FA Cup every year. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield «T•C» 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 20 minutes appearance as a substitute[1]. --Malcolmxl5 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BIO says that the bar of notability is playing in "a fully professional league". Eddie Anaclet has never played in a fully professional league. Sunderland06 states that he has played for Oxford 55 times. That's true but Oxford United play in the Conference, a semi-professional league. Stifle says he played for Southampton. Not so! He was a trainee at Southampton but never played in the first-team. WikiGull contends that playing for 20 minutes in the FA cup makes him notable. The FA cup competition is not a fully professional league and a 20 minutes appearance is no basis for long term historical notability. A very definite delete, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would this still be the same if this was say, Bury, a current league team, and not Oxford, who at the time he played for them were a league team, but are not any longer? What about when one of the Premiership teams plays their reserve goalkeeper in the FA Cup to give them a game. Do we delete them? WikiGull 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Wikipedia is hugely inclusionary towards athletes, but this is just a bridge too far for me. Can you say that this persons life is "encyclopediac" in the ordinary sense of that word? Delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:58, 13 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 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Krashen

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

The article lacks sufficient sources to argue notability for the person. (Please recall that a high number of published documents and search engine hits do not constitute notability.) After a brief review of a biography posted to Wikipedia, which was removed due to copyright reasons, it does not appear that this person has significantly contributed to this field. However, this is my view of it, others may differ. If there are additional sources, not by the subject himself, that provide evidence of notability, perhaps this article is worthwhile. As it stands, there is not enough information. Additionally, the article has been online for some time without any new (legal) information added to the page. — Chris53516 (Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suggest YOU read the guideline, and stop trying to bully others when you're losing an argument. FROM THE GUIDELINE (the REAL one[3], which I doubt you bothered to read): "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" and "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work... if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". The first hit in the link I provided is a book review which states, in fact, that his work is significant in this field. The 3000+ cites back up this claim. This is not a fly-by-night prof looking to get famous. This is a professor emeritus at a notable institution with several books to his credit, one of which has been cited by over 1000. Many of his articles alone are cited by close to 100 apiece. This man's work is significant and thoroughly cited, therefore, he is notable. End of story.--Sethacus 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Article needs improvement" is not a valid reason for deletion of a stub article. The discussion here is about whether the subject of the article meets notability criteria; the Google Scholar link provided above shows that he easily passes the guidelines at WP:PROF on number of citations alone. Thomjakobsen 19:35, 11 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. --Coredesat 02:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brush

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield «T•C» 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zomboo

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

Zomboo gets fewer than 2,000 Google hits, of which under 150 are unique. It looks, from a read around the net, as if "on the air" is actually mainly on the internet. This article, in as much as it rises above the level of a directory entry, almost makes it to the status of a bad advertisement. It has never had any sources. Cruftbane 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and friends video - release

edit
Thomas and friends video - release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory of listcruft. Corvus cornix 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The list is factual, verifiable, and notable. The fact that it is of interest to the minority of the population who are interested in a set of stories about anthropomorphised railway engines does not make it cruft, it simply makes it a minority interest list. Wikipedia is enhanced bhy the presence of such material.Weak Delete I had not realised this was weaseling around a deletion threat previously, I thought it was a typo (release/releases). It is also not supported by a key member of WP:THOMAS. On that basis it may take its chance. Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant info. Each heading leads to an article about that season, episodes are listeed on both pages. Seems like listcruft to me. Ridernyc 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is just a list of the videos of the subject. Now lets take the issues one at a time. Factual - I have no reason to believe that it not correct. Verifiable - There is not a single reference or source, so this is demonstrably false. Notable - I do not dispute that the main subject matter (Thomas the Tank Engine) is notable. But I seriously question whether a list of videos is notable! In fact, I would ask as to whether it infringes the WP:SPAM criteria. At the end of the day, this article is simply a list, and contain zero factual or encyclopedic information!! Perhaps the article should be renamed so that readers do know that it is a list. Canterberry 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt; this list is yet another bad-faith attempt to avoid the redirections of Thomas-merchandise articles. This list was previously at Thomas and Friends video releases, which was sensibly turned into a redirect. I'm going to nominate Thomas & friends TOMY wind ups as that is another attempt to avoid the necessary redirection of Thomas Tomy Wind Ups. Masaruemoto 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really need this Thomas the Tank Engine content. Are the indivdual season notable enough to have their own page and every episode have a detailed entry. 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
wow there is really no reason every character should have their own article.Ridernyc 02:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Belford

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield «T•C» 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok well true this player has never played a professional league game, although he plays for a league team, and im sure if you go though a few of the fringe players and young players who signed contracts for this season, you will probably find they havn't actually played a professional league game either, so why don't you have a little look though all them as well, seen as you have nothing better to do, oh your a man of steel on wikipedia ain't you, the deleting articles man "Robwingfield", you should get a life me old mucka, oh well at least the Ludovic Quistin article will continue to remain as it should, enjoy your deletions important man. Stew jones 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, Stew jones, and note that all subjects must be notable to warrant an ecycopedic article. For footballers, the criteria is that he must have "played in a fully professional league' per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Conference League is not fully professional (and I'm not sure of this), he fails WP:BIO and should be deleted, as that is the highest league in which he has played a game. It'd be funny though if he went on to represent England and this AfD discussion was brought up... --Mkativerata 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Conference is not fully professional. The article can easily be restored by an admin should he ever play in a league higher than that (or for England!) --Malcolmxl5 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in that case. --Mkativerata 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd probably go for keep. Okay, he hasn't made a league start but he does have a squad number and could start in the near future. Peanut4 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah lets delete ay gents, power surge, send it to the scrap heap, after all its only somebodies hard work making the article, who cares. One thing I have noticed and really must point out is that current Middlesbrough players Graeme Owens and Jonathan Grounds both havn't made a professional league appearance, so does that mean they both have to get the deletion treatment also Stew jones 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Owens won the FA Youth Cup. That may establish general notability even though he would fail WP:SPORT, so he might not need to be deleted. Grounds I'm not so sure about (was he in the FA Youth Cup winning team?). Remember, the hard work that went into the articles up for deletion does not necessarily go to waste. It can be restored if and when they satisfy the clear and considered policy guidelines in WP:SPORT. It highlights the importance of checking the relevant notability criteria before writing an article. --Mkativerata 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Stew Jones Well, yes. Go ahead and nominate Owens and Grounds for deletion for that reason. Wikipedia cannot be a repository of information about every person in the world. A line has to be drawn somewhere and for footballers, it's having played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Malcolmxl5 I don't need to go round deleting other peoples work to make myself feel better, it really doesn't bother me that Graeme Owens and Jonathan Grounds don't meet the standards, I would rather praise the person who made these articles, and give them credit for taking the time to make these articles. I don't get my kicks off deleting other peoples hard work. Stew jones 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stew. Something like 5,000 articles are deleted every day because they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you are you objecting to articles being deleted solely because someone has put hard work into them then you are probably in the wrong project. --Malcolmxl5 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this player has not "yet" made an appearance for Bury, I'm sure it is only a short matter of time before he does. Is there any point in deleting off a page that will be restored in a few weeks... come on guys, surely you've got better things to be doing with your lifes... well I hope so anyway! Jonesy702 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, player in a club in England's fourth-highest league would qualify as notable in my book. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO sets the bar of notability and hence inclusion in the encyclopedia as having played in a fully professional league. Cameron Belford has never played a game in a fully professional league. Arguments that someone's 'hard work' is being destroyed are not tenable. Crystal balling, predicting that he will play in a few weeks times (he is third choice goalkeeper, by the way), is not an arguement based on sound reasoning or evidence. Being 'in' a club without ever having played in a professional league is not a criteria for notability that you wil find in WP:BIO. This one is a very definite delete. --Malcolmxl5 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree with Stew's comment about the hard work that has gone into this article, some of which is my own. But what some people need to think about here, is this play is a "full time, professional league player", whether or not he has made an appearance "yet" shouldn't decide whether page should stay or go. I believe this players page should remain as he is a full time player - if he is released by the club and ends up with a team lower that League Two, then by all means delete him off, but only if he hasn't made a league appearance. Jonesy702 18:25, 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 delete. --Coredesat 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scar (Music Producer)

edit
Scar (Music Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"one of the more acclaimed producers in the hip hop music music industry" at the age of 19, doesn't seem likely. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio in Merchant of Venice

edit
Antonio in Merchant of Venice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure original research - there's certainly potential for a valid, sourced article to be written on the character, but not a scene-by-scene CliffsNotes analysis. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group project for a college course. We are not even finished with it. There are more in depth things to come. The Act by act section just highlights his action in the play and there are comments in it on his character as well.Shakespearesister 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment We're supposed to be talking about the subject of the article, not the article in its current state. Wikipedia definitely has room for an article on Antonio. We can just move it to Antonio (Merchant of Venice), and, if necessary, pare it down to a stub, although again, it's really not as bad as people think it is. ("Antonio in Merchant of Venice" seems like a plausible search term, so whatever happens, we can use this as a redirect page.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That we did not previously have an article is our own fault. There has been quite enough on all major Shakespeare characters for articles. The references cited are standard, and fully support the article. It would be good to have in-line citations, and they should be so advised, but the article is not unreferenced. Speedy Keep Snow Close suggested to keep us looking further like fools. We already do sufficiently. DGG (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep (can't withdraw due to the delete votes). The problems are on their way to being addressed, and it's now adequately sourced. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 40 billion articles about porn stars, pokemon creatures, and obsessive gamer crap left unmolested, we ought to have a policy anybody who claims that major Shakespearean characters aren't worthy of notice ought to be banned for disruption. Not that this will ever happen. VivianDarkbloom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree the article is much improved since it was nominated, at which time it did not have references. Improving article content at WP is in my view an extremely important goal, but AfD is a clumsy instrument for upgrading content. DGG (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Antonio (Merchant of Venice). -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 13 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 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ramsay Watt Boyd

edit
Peter Ramsay Watt Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Beloved radiologist, but still just a radiologist, despite the huge amount of fangushing in the article. Corvus cornix 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - Obvious soapboxing/personal essay - previously deleted and this AFD was previously closed. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Nigeria Going?

edit
Where is Nigeria Going? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I thought I'd nominate this rather than add a speedy tag because it does offer some interesting information but I don't believe it's worthy of an article by itself and should perhaps be merged with Nigeria RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A1, A7, G11, and probably some others. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia maiden

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

Self-promotional article about a non-notable comic. Article states that the comic will be self-published in the future--Dark Matter Comics (since speedied) is also the author's own creation. Prod was removed by author with no explanation other than "updated info". --Finngall talk 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per non-notable, and seems to advertising for a self-made comic. Thanks, Codelyoko193 TalkSign here 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - blatant advertising, as evidenced by not only the obvious self-promo/COI writer (User:Darkmattercomics writing a piece about a work published by Dark Matter Comics), as well as the inclusion of a copyright notice from the work. Moreover, if the company article was nn, so is a work published by them. MSJapan 15:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo) to School District 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith and all others to School District 22 Vernon. John254 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Elementary School (Nanaimo)

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

Non-notable school. The article doesn't even really contain any encyclopedic information. Rjd0060 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (NN & little context):

6 Mile Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crossroads Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles Bloom Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Open Door Alternate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W L Seaton Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Rjd0060 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as non-notable. Thanks, Codelyoko193 TalkSign here 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all. I live in British Columbia, home to all these schools, and have never heard of any of them. I checked to see that the alternative schools were not in the vicinity of a recent local scandal about polygamy; not AFAIK. Perfectly ordinary non-notable schools. Accounting4Taste 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Thagard NCC-652

edit
USS Thagard NCC-652 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially prodded article was restored on request, but notability concerns are obvious (a science fiction fanclub), and the article is lacking sources to establish that this is more than a run-of-the-mill club. Sent here to let the community investigate and decide. trialsanderrors 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan West

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

Extremely borderline notability. Nominating per a thread on ANI. Yes, he has a grammy nomination, but that was an engineer... do we have articles for every sound engineer on every Grammy nominated album(s)? I recuse from this one, as I simply don't know enough about what is notable for back-end music technicians like this.

NOTE: User:Ryanwestmusic, who appears to be Ryan West, made the article and worked a lot on it. • Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question, though... does being a sound engineer on a Grammy nominated album count? We'd have a dozen new articles on engineers each year in that case. • Lawrence Cohen 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would fall under "Notability is not inherited" - the artist and the album might be notable, but everyone who worked on it is not necessarily notable. Mr.Z-man 17:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to add my two cents here, but here goes. I am a mixing engineer and record producer with plenty credible references on the web. Whether Wikipedia decides that because I'm not famous outside of the music business I don't deserve a blurb or two, I'm non-plussed. What space does it take up? 300kb? I could list a whole bunch of stuff that in some people's eyes, would be enough for an article. I've been interviewed by Scratch, Remix and Mix magazine. I was on VH1's White Rapper Show. I am currently producing my cousin, Lady Miss Kier of Deeelite. I have two Grammy nominations....yes nominations, not wins, however I was nominated and attended. I have hundreds of products on the market with my name and creative input on them. You may not give engineer/mixers much credit, but I think that's a mistake. Besides, who in the heck said you must be famous to be listed here? I mean, I've seen listings for CEOs of middle of the road corporations. Where's the priority here? Like I said, either way, I'm non-plussed, but let's be clear here. My listing has been plagued by jerk-faced pranksters. I'm not sure how I became the target of that crap, but I can assure you it's made me weary of this whole thing. Sorry for the dissertation, but how's a guy supposed to feel? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.97.172 (talk) 01:19, 12 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. Consensus is that the article is an inappropriate content fork. -- Jreferee t/c 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of religion

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

Blatant POV fork of development of religion. Partially consists of edits rejected by the wiki process from related topics. Redirect to Development of religion. Vassyana 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No POV, just based on reliable sources from scholars in the field. Muntuwandi ::::This entry needs to be deleted speedily, and this is made even more apparent by the fact that the creator of this entry is showing unwilliness to work with anyone, even sympathetic editors to improve upon his NPOV synthesis and OR that seems mainly to push the unprovable point that behavioral modernity and hence religion necessarily evolved in Africa. We need to delete this entry and fix Development of religion in part by adding the notable and sourcable material present in Muntuwandi's synthesis.PelleSmith 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editor behavior problem that should be handled with those procedures, I think. --lquilter 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this editor's behavior should probably be dealt with through other procedures, but I believe his behavior is acccentuating the problems with the entry. That's what I was trying to say ... so I edited my original statement.PelleSmith 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If modern humans originated in Africa, which is the mainstream consensus, then what is wrong with the hypothesis that religion appeared with modern humans at at the same time.Muntuwandi 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because its your own original hypothesis and it isn't notable in the least.PelleSmith 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a scholar or expert on religion, I wouldn't be able to synthesize such a hypothesis, this based on archaelogists, not me. Muntuwandi 23:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is an arms length third-party citation. I haven't seen that anywhere in wikipedia guidelines. But I have seen reliability and verifiability as wikipedia requirements, which the article currently meets these standards. Muntuwandi 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment While some may dispute the content of the article, the topic "origin of religion" is a valid topic. Muntuwandi 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is it can be recreated in a balanced, NPOV manner citing notable theories of religion's origin.PelleSmith 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the poor grammar as well and have to admit that it initially biased me against the article. Luckily, I fought against my bias and read the entire thing, including examining some of the sources. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment has anybody even bothered to read the sources. Muntuwandi 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe this is being a bit too picky, but the 2nd sentence isn't a sentence and the 1st reads like the intro to someone's thesis. If it were to stay, it'd need serious work. If the POV is evident from the first sentence, it's hard to take the rest too seriously. Interesting topic? Sure. But, that alone doesn't cut it.--Jonashart 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. If the grammar is incorrect, that shouldn't be a problem, one can always correct it. Muntuwandi 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article development of religion focuses on psychological elements that could have lead to the development of religion. The article makes no mention of middle or upper paleolithic peoples with regards to religion. Neither does it make any mention of primate or animal self-awareness. Consequently it is not a POV fork because the materials are totally different and independent.Muntuwandi 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Development of religion, without prejudice to recreation, should that article grow too large to accommodate it.  – ornis⚙ 08:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles and start from scratch First of all, we need to distinguish carefully between institutionalized religions' own accounts of how they developed - which I believe belongs not in a general article on the origins of religion but in the article son those specific religions - and accounts by scientists. Now, it may be possible to merge both articles to turn it into such an article. However, both articles suffer from two very serious flaws: first, they ignore the considerable debate over what religion is/how to define it; there is no scholarly consensus. Second, se will never, ever have adequate evidence for a scientific theory of how the first religions formed. All we have are speculative models and any article needs to emphasize this. It seems to me that explanations for how religion starts/started all actually are byproducts of specific theories of what religion "is" and i think it would be misleading to frame it any other way. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with these assertions but I think the development entry could be significantly re-written to do what you suggest, and in fact it could be renamed as well.PelleSmith 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe completely separating scientific and religious perspectives presents significant WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK issues. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is talking about the earliest origins of religion as well as how it relates to our primate cousins. It does need more sources (especially the Lower Paleolithic bit), but that can be remedied by either finding the sources or removing the unsourced bits. The article it supposedly is a POV fork from is talking about the more modern development of religion. A merge is a possible compromise with this article covering the earlier times and the other article the later. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PelleSmith. Moreover, the majority of this article is material that was added by Muntuwandi to Religion months ago and rejected by discussion here. This is synthesis of throwaway comments from books and papers on other topics which have very little, if anything, to do with the topic of religion or Muntuwandi's assertions about it. There is no encyclopedic value to the sources as far as religion goes, so there's nothing worth merging. MSJapan 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete - it is clearly a fork of Development of religion; merge anything worth keeping (of which there is more than people here are giving credit for) and then delete the renmants. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have included some of the sourced information on the talk page Talk:Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources cited
The sources cited include:
Correct me If I am wrong but I believe these are reliable scholars and hence reliable sources. This is not original research because it is their work. Muntuwandi 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken individually they are reliable sources, but... organizing them as the article does creates a novel synthesis, which is considered Original Research under WP:NOR. Blueboar 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but aren't all articles a synthesis of several sources. In fact a good article requires citations from several sources. A synthesis that is original research provides a conclusion, that the individual sources did not arrive at. There is no conclusion in this article.Muntuwandi 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
development of religon
My understanding is those are different disciplines altogether, for example development of religion states
The development of religion is concerned with a variety of perspectives on the ways in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly speaking, three types of models provide different perspectives on the subject:
  • Models which see religions as social constructions;
  • Models which see religions as progressing toward higher, objective truth;
  • Models which see a particular religion as absolutely true;
There is no mention of what archaeologists have found regarding religion. This is a social science view of religion. The origin of religion deals mainly with information from archeology and evolutionary biology which goes back millions of years. The very first evidence of any sort of behavior that can be directly associated with any form of ritual, spirituality or religion is the intentional burial of the dead by the Neanderthals some 300,000 years ago. No other species on the planet is known to intentionally bury the dead, especially with the addition of grave goods. All this is not present in the development of religion article, and hence this article, origin of religion is actually covering different material. So to say that the origin of religion is a POV fork is incorrect, because they are not covering the same material. POV forks cover the same material as the article that they are forking from and put non-neutral slant on it. Muntuwandi 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Even evolution is speculative. The speciation of large organism has actually never been observed. Muntuwandi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment A suggestion, instead of one liners on an editors opinion, I would be greatful if someone could actually pinpoint which section, paragraphs of the article are not neutral, original research or a synthesis. A one-liner without an explanation could be simply an opinion of an editor that is not backed by wikipedia guidelines. Muntuwandi 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment development of religion offers no timeline on religion. Muntuwandi 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? What "particular religions" does it deal with? I don't think that is accurate at all. It doesn't have any good information or theoretical content on "origins," but that doesn't mean that the origins of religion, or proto-religion, doesn't belong in the entry. The creator of this origins entry simply refuses to work with the development entry, and has done so for some time now. How is this material not relevant to the development of religion?PelleSmith 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The majority of the references don't seem to mention where Religion comes from, which does seem to support the idea that this article (Or at least most of it) consists of original synthesis. Homestarmy 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article origin of religion has better sources than the article Development of religion. the development of religion article only has 6 references.
  • Faces in the Clouds, Stewart Elliot Guthrie, Oxford University Press (1995).
  • http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/boyer_religious_concepts.htm, Functional Origins of Religious concepts, Pascal Boyer
  • Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)
  • Robert William Fogel; The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism; 2000, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-25662-6
  • William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning, New York: Broadway Books, 1997.
  • Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, 1997, Banner of Truth, ISBN 0-85151-712-9. This is a reprint of the original work published in 1842.
only one subsection Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology out of the whole article has any footnotes. The rest of the article has no footnotes whatsoever.
the article origin of religion has over 28 references, the majority of the articles are available on the web for instant reading. The article has footnotes all through. If there should be any complaints about an article, they should be about the Development of religion article. This article origin of religion,thus cannot be a POV fork of a poorly referenced article. Muntuwandi 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synthesis
WP:SYN says Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
There is no section in the article where sources are combined to form a conclusion that the authors of the article did not make. If there is one, please highlight the exact paragraph. Any accusations of original research or synthesis require evidence. Muntuwandi 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are now a number of published works (not all of which were cited above) precisely on this topic. I also note that "origin" is conceptually quite distinct from "development". I think these two articles should both play out a bit and then be revisited to see if they would benefit from coordinated development or merger. --lquilter 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE and COMMENT--to address the concern of Muntawandi's that no one has challanged any of the actual content or given him examples of how the entry is a synthesis I have provided an in depth point by point analysis of Origin of religion available to view and to comment on at Talk:Origin of religion.PelleSmith 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The editor who nominated this article for deletion did it on the basis that this article was a Blatant POV fork of development of religion. However he has not provided any evidence that this article was created as a fork of the Development of religion article. Muntuwandi 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article in its present form is quite horrible, but there can be little doubt the topic is valid. Issues of WP:CFORK with development of religion, prehistoric religion and anthropology of religion need to be addressed, if necessary by merging. This is a difficult job for expert editors, and calls for deletion are not very helpful. The topic is valid, but the article as it stands is crap? The solution is {{cleanup}}, not {{afd}}! dab (𒁳) 07:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - looking through it, the article is so weak that it should be merged into the equally weak development of religion. Deletion isn't required for this, the title is valid, but until somebody sits down and does a proper job, it's better to have one weak article on the topic than two. dab (𒁳) 08:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move + Redirect + possible Merge/Redirect: Origin of religion seems dedicated to a single theory whereas Development of religion provides a framework for exploring a number of different competing theories. Therefore:
    1. Development of religion should be treated as a main article for any theory of the origins or development of religion
    2. The article Origin of religion should be moved (renamed) to clearly identify which theory of religion is being described and clearly marked as a sub-article of Development of religion. This will allow readers to assess the importance of this particular theory in the context of all available theories of the origin of religion.
    3. The name Origin of religion should be redirected to Development of religion as origin is merely a stage of development. It is confusing and misleading to have a single theory be associated with a title that identifies a stage in the development of origin, especially when there are multiple theories about the origins of religion. A redirect will also prevent a future attempt to reserve this very general title for a particular theory. I note that Origins of religion (the pluralized name) is already redirected to Development of religion.
    4. No delete: In Development of religion, a brief description of the theory should be included along with some cited material indicating its relative importance among the theories. If no such cited material is available, I would like us to take a wait and see approach - sometimes it takes time for even an expert to get to the library and find the sources.
      • Although the idea of God gene may seem bizarre to some, somatized theories of religon are not new. They were particularly mainstream in the 19th century and much of the 20th. There was a very popular book in the mid 1980's that attempted to explain religion in terms of right/left brain communication. Before that it was common to explain religious experience as a form of epilepsy, schitzophrenia or some other neurological disorder.
      • The various criticisms on the talk page pertain to the quality of the theory itself - even notable and well documented theories have holes big enough to drive trucks through. For years Freud's theory that "religion is a mass neurosis" was quoted by many as near gospel, even though Freud himself acknowledges that religious people have fewer neuroses in the normal medical sense of the word (see "Future of an Illusion, trans. James Strachey, New York: WW Norton, 1961, p. 44).
    5. A merge should be considered unless it would make the development of religion too long or raise WP:UNDUE issues. WP:UNDUE says that marginal theories may be treated in a separate article, so if there is a consensus that this theory is marginal at best, it is probably better to leave a full description of the theory in a separate article (appropriately named after the theory). If a merge is possible, the renamed article should be redirected to development of religion
Egfrank 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I think development of religion should focus on how religion progressed from basic ancestral worship to religion as an institution. This article should focus on biological and evolutionary factors. Muntuwandi 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands does not address biological and evolutionary factors except in the opening paragraph where it refers to a second article on the God gene. Furthermore, the article is titled "Origin of religon", not The role of biology and evolution in the development of religion. Additionally, an article that had that name would have to present several different biological and evolutionary theories and ideally give the reader a framework for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of those theories relative to one another and relative to non-evolutionary/biological theories. The article doesn't do that either. Best, Egfrank 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the criticism is focussed on this article, but I think the Development of religion has no useful information on religion in general. I don't believe the articles should be merged because the "origin of religion" is a valid topic on its own. The materia for the "origin of religion" is going to be significantly less because scientists are still trying to piece together human evolutionary history. Development of religion will have more material because most of the studies deal with present day religions. However, as you mentioned, there are several ways to approach the origin of religion. In this case we should focus on the most objective, that is the human fossil record. Muntuwandi 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia way (and the academic way) is to include all theories and let the reader decide for themselves which is the most objective/best formulated/etc. Hence the need to address multiple theories. Best, Egfrank 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Editors are entitled to their own opinions, however no one has provided any evidence that this article is a POV fork of any other article. Muntuwandi 03:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK states:
POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.
There was never any dispute on the development of religion article regarding this content. So according to this definition "origin of religion" cannot be a POV fork of development of religion because the editor who created this article never edited development of religion before. Muntuwandi 04:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As other people have already noted, some parts could be merged into Development of religion, but the article is a bit too synthetic as it stands. Does not appear to be a POV fork to my eyes, although I can see how this conclusion may have been arrived at; may have been an accidental duplication of effort. A merge would help expand Development of religion to cover this area, which I think falls within its subject matter. The merged material should obviously make sure to avoid synthesis. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could people please try to keep indentation levels tidy? I've taken the liberty of doing some minor neatening so that I can read the page; if I messed up please fix my efforts! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I disagree with merging the articles because development of religion has plenty of its own problems. If someone is willing to clean up the development of religion article, then a discussion on merging may be warranted. One of the key differences between the two articles is that development of religion deals with actual religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. The sources for the origin of religion, such as the books cited above, actually make no mention of any specific religion. This is an important distinction between these two articles at the moment. Muntuwandi 16:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could also merge Origin in before cleaning up, which would be beneficial since the merged-in content would serve as a scaffold for expanding this particular subtopic of Development during cleanup. The two articles may be distinct in their contents at present, but if you read this page you'll note a few people would prefer them not to be; and since this is a wiki, we can effect that change, starting with a content merge. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Which information is a synthesis and which is OR.Muntuwandi 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all of it. You are quite obviously unable to write an article on any topic whatsoever without turning it into an essay about "out of Africa". Most of your material is perfectly valid, but belongs on completely different articles. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I am interested in 'out of africa'. But this is one of the most important hypothesis of the 20th century and it has implications beyond the theory. I dispute merging the articles for a number of reasons:
  • The main sources cited use the term "origin of religion" and not "development of religion" eg Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion" and The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. this article uses the term "origin of faith"[4].
  • the article Development of religion is not well defined and has several problems with it. As I have mentioned earlier it only has 3 footnotes in the whole article. Origin of religion has 28 footnotes. Why is development of religion being treated as like it is good article, when it is possible that it has plenty of OR.
  • None of sources cited in Development of religion are cited in origin of religion and vice-versa meaning these topics as they stand are mutually exclusive.
  • merging is an attempt to water down some of the information that is in this article. As I mentioned earlier, the sources cited make no mention of any particular religion. Development of religion does make mention a number of religions such as judaism, christianity, bahai etc. To mix these up is OR and a WP:SYN because the sources cited have not mixed them up.
My suggestion therefore is to let these two articles run for some time. They can be revisited in the future. Development of religion has had very little activity recently. If editors truly believe that the articles should be merged then someone should clean up development of religion to give an accurate representation of how the topic is studied academically. Muntuwandi 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been clearly indicated to you on this article's talk page what is wrong with the article, addressing specific issues. What is wrong with your sourcing and approach has been explained to you in relation to no original research, synthesis and reliability on multiple occasions. Please do not put on airs to the contrary. Vassyana 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any credible explanation. I think editors are confusing certain issues. It seems that editors are disagreeing with the authors of these studies not with the article. You are entitled to disagree with the author's assertions at a personal level. However one's personal beliefs should not interfere with wikipedia articles. At this stage, nobody has shown any proof that the article contains information that is not found in the sources. We should recall the Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED).Muntuwandi 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MERGE states: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
This article is not short and likelihood of expansion is high. Especially when scientists begin to find more genes related to religion. Muntuwandi 22:31, 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. --Coredesat 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines in films

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

This is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO whose only criteria for inclusion is the appearance of an airline, for even a single second (such as Aeroflot in Bourne Supremacy), in film, music video, etc. Russavia 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be careful with any 'one might as well make a list of....' arguments, as it can often backfire with funny results, which I present you with the one might as well write an article about Cheeses in popular culture arguments. --Russavia 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Liked your Flying High comment. Kinda makes me also think why Ekipazh isn't mentioned under Aeroflot. And another movie, Nochnoy Dozor could be listed under Aeroflot, however, this would go against the prose which sort of insinuates that airlines pay to appear in movies, when Aeroflot threatened to sue those behind the movie claiming infringement of their copyright. Totally irrelevant to this Afd, but does show the 'what about Airline ***, better add it to the list' way these lists operate. --Russavia 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cumberworth

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

Non-notable footballer. Not at a professional club and with no professional appearances. (Contested Prod) ArtVandelay13 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Sustainability Commission

edit
Australian Sustainability Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not an organisation of any kind, it may exist at some point in the future, but looks unlikely. I'm putting it to AfD as I'm really not sure enough to speedy/prod it, and think the community may have more information than I do. Orderinchaos 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussions and comments sould be posted on the article's talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep discount broker

edit
Deep discount broker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not really sure if this belongs on Wikipedia, seems like a dictionary definition. Leaning more towards delete, but a transwiki to Wiktionary is also a possibility Rackabello 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Maybe we should keep after all and look for some sources and info, if it's really a distinct term and class of business. I could swear I've heard it somewhere too. However, the fact that the best source found to date is a 1994 article, albeit in the New York Times, suggests the term isn't in general use and as you say is subjective. If it were an obscure field of business, a single NY Times reference plus a few others would be enough to sustain an article. As a term that if real would apply to a several billion dollar a year industry, if that's all there is then perhaps it's just not worth discussing in an article.Wikidemo 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close this as no consensus per Wikidemo's above comment. VoL†ro/\/Force 02:38, 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 per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeley Boys Under 18's

edit
Heeley Boys Under 18's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable under-18 football club. Corvus cornix 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect to American Wrestling Federation. KrakatoaKatie 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alperstein

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

Delete. NN, also fails WP:Bio Endless Dan 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30mins

edit
30mins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged in February as failing notability guidelines, no independent sources have ever been included to support the rather tenuous claim of notability. Created by TinaChong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has no other contributions before or since, save to link this to a high-level article on editorial cartooning. The entire thing appears to be original research and the subject does not appear to be notable. Cruftbane 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enozinho's Law

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

Non-notable neologism. Google notes 4 instances of use, excluding wikipedias. Deltopia 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the article again, the reference is there. If this was more notable/widespread, it could have been merged with Godwin's Law. Accounting4Taste 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

edit
Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

(View AfD)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are a magnet for POV, OR and vandalism, and mostly consist of a top 10 list and a hunk of unsourced trivia and analysis. As well, there are no sources that prove their significance. There was a similar article for the 100 Greatest Guitarists that was deleted roughly a year ago. The AFD can be found for that here. At the very least, the pages should be merged into the Rolling Stone article. Scorpion0422 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would advocate keeping these, I'm afraid. Yes, they are a maintenance nightmare but the Rolling Stone all-time 500 blah is very widely discussed as a benchmark, at least where its upper echelons are concerned. It was, of course, a seasonal space-filler, but it has garnered a lot of independent attention. The guitarists list was not, I think ,quite the same - it was essentially a repeat of the list, wasn't it? Which would violate copyright. These seem to make at least an attempt to talk about the articles, their compilation and critical reaction rather than simply republishing them. So it seems to me, anyway. Cruftbane 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any sources that prove that these articles are discussed as benchmarks? Besides, Rolling Stone has done many articles that have garnered widespread discussion, do all of them deserve their own page? I think a mention in the Rolling Stone article and perhaps a section called "Rolling Stone lists" is more than enough. -- Scorpion0422 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some relevant discussion can be found on my talk page. Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time isn't just an off the cuff list that you see printed every few months, it was a one off special edition, and released as a hardback edition. It is still in print, whereas magazine back issues quickly disappear. - hahnchen 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - if it were a reproduction of the list (as I expected before I clicked on it) it'd be a no-brainer delete, but this is actually a pretty good article about the list that avoids any copyvio problems. Artw 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely per Artw. There's some sourcing issues, but they can be addressed. Rolling Stone is something of an authority on music, and when they do lists of this scope, it's significant. --UsaSatsui 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen and Artw. Vandalism issues are a reason to place the article on your watchlist and patrol it, but they are not a valid reason to delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, notable since this list was published as a book and since the Kill Yr Idols book was written as a response to the list. 96T 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article continues to be referenced, discussed and debated nearly 4 years after it was written. Very notable. --Endless Dan 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many references. [5] do some due diligence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe some sort of limited editing or something, since the article basically doesn't need editing and is an open door for vandalism, but the article should definitely stay.--Mariogc 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's a valuable source for a major magazine's music review special and shows trends throughout decades, among bands, etc. Marty Donakowski 04:21, 13 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, including the category and the template. --Coredesat 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in Category:Lists of pieces by composer

edit
List of pieces by composer: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pieces by composer: T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete and redundant now we have Category:Compositions by composer Centy – reply• contribs – 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George hakun

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

Claims of notability, so I didn't immediately list it for speedy deletion, but there are only 19 Google hits for "George hakun". There are no entries at artistidrect.com or allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I Googled this name in combination with each individual song and band name mentioned -- nothing. Apparently not as well known as is asserted here; doesn't meet WP:Notable, WP:BAND or WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. Googling his name alone only gets 18 hits, none for a musician. Also, the claims are rather bizarre. How does one get to be a five-time honorable mention on Billboard, especially for songs that are "popular" only in one part of the US? I highly suspect this is a vanity bio or, worse, wishful thinking.--Sethacus 05:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge fights

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

Blatant hoax - 0 ghits on either Scentarians or Leminicies. This reads suspiciously like someone transcribing part of an RPG. "Hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, and not quite nonsense enough for a G1 — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Day

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

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harris (newscaster)

edit
Scott Harris (newscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Evans

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

Already speedied once under the name Chase evans, and an apparent clear COI - sole contributor: Chaseevans (talk · contribs). Bringing it over here to get a once-and-for-all decision on whether this passes WP:PORNBIO or not. Procedural nom, so I abstain. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why would you delete it --Chaseevans 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Hasn't been around long enough yet to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Borderline spam.--Sethacus 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was denied. I'll still vote delete.--Sethacus 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Clarkson

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

No evidence that this radio presenter meets Wikipedia:Notability. Page appears to be a copy-and-paste of his personal website, with only slight changes of text. Could be speedily deleted as blatant advertising, but I've taken this to Articles for Deletion just in case. At the moment though, there is little credible evidence to suggest he meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Solumeiras talk 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.P. Da Phranchise

edit
D.P. Da Phranchise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another unremarkable rapper. Speedy was declined on the basis of claiming to have a smash hit, "Let Me In". Attempting to search for his smash hit yields very minimal results, and none of them appear reliable. None of his mixtapes or albums check out either. Probably an autobiography, but I have no evidence of this. Bongwarrior 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. KrakatoaKatie 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Spyrou

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

This article's creator and only major contributor User:Airshipman is a representative of Airship Management Services, Inc., possibly even George Spyrou himself. This is quite clear in the source descriptions of images this user uploaded. See Special:Contributions/Airshipman Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was good grief, delete, delete. --Coredesat 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work Abroad Philippines

edit
Work Abroad Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Creator worked only on this article. Probable spam Lenticel (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed as keep due to nominator withdrawing his nom. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airship Management Services, Inc.

edit
Airship Management Services, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article's creator and only major contributor User:Airshipman is a representative of Airship Management Services, Inc. This is quite clear in the source descriptions of images this user uploaded. See Special:Contributions/Airshipman. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A conflict of interest alone is not a reason to delete. From WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." I suggest withdrawing the deletion nomination unless you actually think the company isn't notable, which it might well not be, but your nomination didn't mention that. --W.marsh 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The article is an awful mess at the moment - and shows a strong conflict oif intrest, but does seem to have Reliable Sorces - if these actually do support the article and talk about the company (rather than just a passing mention) then this probably is notable.Nigel Ish 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't confuse COI with blatant spam. COI is not a reason to delete. This article is referenced, and yes it had some spammy language, but I and other editors have cleaned this up. I've moved the article to a MOS compliant name (dropped the "Inc"). It probably could stand further cleanup, but as one of the few companies that is actively building and operating airships, it's notable in that regard, the article has good sourcing (though I'm sure more can be found), and IMHO meets our policies and guidelines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggested the article about George Spyrou ought to be redirected here in the AfD discussion about his article. The article seems thoroughly well referenced with notable arm's-length third-party sources; the topic seems sufficiently notable to me; it's Mr. Spyrou who doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. The COI is a problem, but not necessarily cause for deletion, just some rewriting to bring it more into line with WP:NPOV (for instance, deleting the direct link to the company's website). Accounting4Taste 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A "direct link to the company's website" is not in violation of WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. But it should be airshipman.com and not the holding company (amusingly, one of the sister companies seems to have lost control of its domain). Official websites of companies are routinely linked to in their articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Rudd

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

No indication that this radio presenter meets the standards for notability of people, or that he even meets notability policy. No reliable third-party sources that assert notability either (references to him removed from radio station websites). Solumeiras talk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Metroid (series). KrakatoaKatie 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime Trilogy

edit
Metroid Prime Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Articles already exist for each of these games. There is no reason why they should be rehashed here. DurinsBane87 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergie discography

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

There has been consensus that artists who've only released one album don't need a separate discography page. 17Drew 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online selling

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

Was spam for a kind of eBay intermediary in India; once all corporate references removed, this became a bunch of original research that seems confused about what it's trying to define. Accounting4Taste 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of the Beast (occurrence)

edit
Number of the Beast (occurrence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced list of occasions someone has used the number 666. This is listcruft and unencyclopedic. We don't need "popular culture references" sections in every article. B 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I recall this used to be a part of the Number of the Beast article, so I'm guessing it has grown out of proportion until it weighed on the article so heavily an editor decided to split it off. I can't see how any sort of useful or encyclopedic article will result from this information being walled off here so I vote to delete rewrite and merge; The original article has a "Culture and Significance" heading just waiting for a rewrite salvaging the best of the content here and ignoring the rest. --AceMyth 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete delete delete (Delete has six letters in it, get it?) Like Ace, I can't see anything encylopedic about someone else's mark of the beast imitation. These aren't occurrences, they're all planned. Mandsford 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as trivia list. "This article covers trivia and other items involving the Number of the Beast". Note how the lead also says "Many of these items are unverified". Punkmorten 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've revised the lead sentence and format of the article some, but please do add more sources. The topic can be encyclopedic if improved. I'll do a quick source search after I post this message. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft is one way to put it, but for those who are just now tuning in, this is a list of loosely associated trivia of the non-encyclopedic type, violating the very core of our WP:FIVE pillars and should be removed. Burntsauce 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:NOR and WP:V Jbeach56 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Massive OR and a virtually infinite topic raising huge notability and POV issues any direction you turn. ... And if, as another editor suggested, it's a split-off from the original article, then instead of returning it to the original article there needs to be a synthesized discussion about the matter with a few particular examples. For instance "Sometimes used intentionally in popular culture, as in x and y, by producers seeking to garner additional publicity for their work. Some have suggested carries hidden messages or has actual religious significance; for example in these works, commentators A and B suggested that producers inserted intentionally, although that was disputed. Other times the very existence of the item has been disputed, as in the famous satanic grilled cheese." In other words, prose. There's just no reason to list these things. --lquilter 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article currently is in need of help, clarity and sourcing all of which can be accomplished through regular editing. The Mark (or number) of the Beast is well represented in popular culture and has books and lectures on the subject. Yes, the article needs work but that is no reason for deletion. Per WP:AFD If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Asa suggestion it would be helpful to organize instances where the number of the beast is used purposefully to exploit the religious connotations, simply for occult factor, to insight demonic ideas and even as parody. In one lecture I know the researcher cited what I think were accidental occurences so perhaps citing some high-profile accidental uses would be appropriate and comparing this use to how some hotels avoid having a 13th floor and maybe companies that have altered a label for the same cultural reasons. Benjiboi 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody's disputing that this topic is encyclopedic and notable - just that it needs its own article. It seems right now that the only reason it can't go back to the original number of the beast article, or indeed the only reason it left there in the first place, is its huge size and choppy presentation. Which in turn are only a necessity because it insists to list in painstaking detail each and every occurrence of the nubmer in bullet-listed form. Given that having this type of "article" is against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:TRIVIA), and this will in all probability have to be reduced to paragraphs of prose as lquilter suggested, I think it is best if this is rewritten and merged back pre-emptively; Unless it becomes some gigantic, well-referenced, brilliant treatise- and I frankly don't think there's enough to be said about this subject to warrant that- the best it can hope for is probably to undergo a substantial rewrite and then be merged back by consensus anyway, when it'll be obvious there isn't enough material in it to justify a separate article. --AceMyth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. There is plenty of content it simply hasn't been introduced into the article as of yet. Years ago I was looking into the subject and there were quite a few books and plenty of papers on the very subject. Granted I felt that some of the thinking was a bit extreme it was pitch-perfect tabloid fodder and there was plenty of it. And lists or bulleted points in and of themselves can be encyclopedic it's just that this one needs more work. I think a decent article should be written and some notable examples provided. Benjiboi 11:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much time this AfD has left, but if you do have the material to turn this into an article you feel could stand on its own, I strongly advise you to rewrite it as at least a proof of concept and make an announcement here once you're done. AfD is not a vote and if the closing admin sees the article does have potential and you are serious about this, they might even overturn a "delete" majority (especially if most of the votes were cast prior to the rewrite). Myself, I still think that 1. No, bulleted points of loosely associated trivia functioning as the entire framework of an article are unencyclopedic by definition, and it would do well to shift the article into prose form; and 2. This text, as it currently is, stands more to gain from being given a context inside of the original article than it does from being given its own article to expand. I very much doubt I'd change my mind about 1, and I urge you to take my advice on that- going head to head with guidelines and consensus rarely benefits an article's health. As for 2, I might be proven wrong just yet. Have at it. --AceMyth 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as much as I've had success rewriting or rescuing articles from AfD I find the entire exercise a bit too stressful. I saw this was up for AfD and then saw how much the article needed some TLC but I have numerous other commitments to tend to before doing a rewrite to maybe save an article. I believe it certainly can be a great article and to me AfD is to explore the potential of an article: Is it beyond hope of ever being a good article or can it be improved through regular editing? If I have time I will try to research some potential sources for research. Benjiboi 23:37, 13 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentory

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

Probably non notable company. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Improbcat 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American musicians

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish American musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This fails WP:NOT#DIR to the letter. Wikipedia is not a list KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Jreferee t/c 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - While there may be plenty of reasons to keep our cogent and well-researched American Jews article, this list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Also, this list is a loose association and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items. The criterion for inclusion in the list is not defined sufficiently such that inclusion is too subjective. For example, how Jewish must one be to be on the list? To what extent does the notability of the person have to be attributed to the person being Jewish to be included in this list? To what extent does the notability of the person have to be attributed to the person being an American Jew to be included in this list? What level of relationship need there be between being Jewish and American to that of being a notable musician? Also, if this list were to be complete, it would be too big to be manageable. Further, this list encourages inclusion politics. There seemingly is an endless number of hyphenated Americans who are notable musicians and this list encourages others to seek representation of their hyphenated American group by posting their own hyphenated American musician list. Of course, then the other nations will want their own hyphenated musician lists. Wikipedia is on the wrong path with these hyphenated musician lists and AfD is a place to correct that. -- Jreferee t/c 22:57, 12 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 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InQuira

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

Possibly non notable company, created by an account with no contribs except those to this article and a product of InQuira. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Improbcat 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion as part of a series of nonsense/attack articles created by one editor.--Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo (slang)

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

Dictionary definition, looks like a hoax or similar. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. —David Eppstein 06:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Hambrick

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

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination, I didn't read carefully enough.

  • Keep. The link to the Broadcaster's Hall of Fame checks out, he's there, that seems like enough notability to me ... or am I missing something? I couldn't find a citation for the "local Emmy awards", admittedly. Accounting4Taste 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit I could be wrong. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. GDonato (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FECRIS

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

Notability has not been proven, since the article (still) has no third party sources, relying solely on the one primary source(org's website. Sfacets 11:31, 1 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, Espresso Addict 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iBrick

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

    web/inernet neologism SYSS Mouse 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment If material is merged to another article, we must redirect to preserve attribution under the GFDL. --07:16, 10 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 keep. W.marsh 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayne Dawson

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

    Non-notable bio of local newscaster Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I Need Help - since I'm not experienced enough, I don't know how to withdraw this and resubmit it as a CSD. I just viewed the log and discovered that this was previously deleted - speedily - for copyvio G12. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood. I couldn't see the previously deleted version. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Maynor

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

    Non notable biography of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete non notable on WP standards Neozoon 23:17, 13 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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Other than the three SPAs participating in the discussion, Accounting4Taste did list a reference, that Jayron32 rebutted as being a non Wikipedia reliable source. The article listed twelve references, none of which is linked to the article text or gives any indication of containing information about Rocket World. The twelve references were not relied up in this discussion to show that the topic met WP:N and were dismissed by the delete discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocket World

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

    Deletion nomination Contested speedy. Article is about a non-notable corporation per WP:CORP. The article claims that the company is a notable one in the world of designer vinyl toys. While some sources have been added, these are all about the industry of designer vinyl toys in general, and NO evidence has been presented which indicates that this company is notable within that industry. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete. Keep (see below). I did find this page on a site called Vinyl Pulse that talks about the toys, but (a) it seems to be aimed at stores that would carry them, which doesn't really lend notability IMHO, and (b) I couldn't find anything else of significance. I admit the idea of homicidal members of endangered species struck me as funny, but not sufficient to recommend keeping this. Accounting4Taste 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As a participant and follower of this genre of Designer Toys you astute contributors might try doing a search in Google for "Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo" to open your eyes to much more content regarding Rocket World. You 2 may know more than I ever hope to know about football or pulp mystery novels ;-), but do some leg work in a genre you clearly know very little about before making quick myopic judgments on this article and this company's relevance in its field. I have been collecting numerous figures from just about all the artists/designers/companies mentioned in this article and Rocket World's Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo is definitely one of the most notable company contributing to this area. Only recently having found the article about Designer Toys on Wikipedia during a Google search, I was pleased to see many of the other companies deservedly mentioned in this article with supporting links. Rocket World needs one too. I think this article should definitely bee a keeper. Thanks guys. :-) Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Publicstorage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your comment, although you neglected to mention that you created the article in question and thus your suggestion to keep it might not meet conflict of interest guidelines. You might want to find the impartial third-party arm's-length references that you suggest are plentiful and add them to the article in order that it could be reconsidered -- that's what AfD is for. You're correct that I don't know much about vinyl toys, but I do consider myself an expert Internet researcher with a lot of experience in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines, and I couldn't find anything much that added notability to the article, including the search parameters you suggested; I wish you better luck. Accounting4Taste 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it was obvious that I wrote the article based on the history anyone can see when viewing the tab. I felt the article worth writing. I do fully admit that I am a neophyte to Wikipedia and all of the ins and outs. I am still learning the correct SOP's and "interpreted guidelines" so graciously pointed out by sagacious wiki-giants such as yourself. Thanks for being such a gentleman about it. Well, as for "better luck" looks like your "Internet research expertise" was just recently expanded. Ahh..both our minds and skill sets have suddenly grown. Life is good. -- Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Having covered the designer toy marketplace for about 5 years, I can tell you that Rocket World is a major player in the genre. They are one of the first US based companies to design and produce a line of urban vinyl figures (Insurgents Wilderness Gruppo). Over the past several years, they have consistently released quality limited edition products for collectors. And their booth is always one of the most popular in the UV section of San Diego Comic Con. If you're looking for coverage of Rocket World, please check out our Rocket World section on Plastic and Plush. We have a number of reviews of their figures and products. (which we don't sell...we're just a news source) Please reconsider deleting this entry. Slovak34 03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Slovak34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. I'm always willing to be convinced, and this tips me over the edge in the opposite direction. I was fooled upon seeing it the first time because I thought the price listings on the first item indicated that the site was selling the toys; this appears to be an arm's-length third party review site which adds notability sufficient for me to change my suggestion to "Keep". I'll add the citation to the article myself. Accounting4Taste 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site shown has 2 problems with it. 1) It really looks like simply a menu of products, having items for sale does not make one notable, else Ebay would be all that we need. There is a rudimentary review of each product. 2) The page is a blog, and does not have the hallmark of a reliable source. Look, there are blogs out there where people review Fan Fiction, but it does not make said items of fan fiction notable. What we need is not just a third-party source (which are ALWAYS availible on ANYTHING. Hell, I could probably find a third-party source which talks about me), but a RELIABLE third-party source as outlined in WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:RS. I still have seen no evidence that such references exist.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck finding a Designer Toy website that doesn't use a blog to convey news. I hate to tell you, but if you don't accept Vinyl Pulse or Plastic and Plush as reliable sources for the Urban Vinyl scene, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't have anything about the genre listed. My "rudimentary" blog has been noted in the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly and several other mainstream publications. You can also add Millionaire Playboy as a site that has a decent amount of Rocket World coverage. And I just saw that site mentioned on G4TV's Attack of the Show a few weeks back. Slovak34 14:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.205.190 (talk) [reply]
    • Comment Jayron32 you amaze me with your self appointed expertise on the subject of "Designer Toys". While who can deny your display of vigor and verve on summary conclusions about a genre you clearly know little about, perhaps you are applying interpreted Wikipedia guidelines to suit your own sense of prosecution and edification. We can all appreciate the self appointed guardians of the right from time to time when taken in good measure, but in this scenario it seems a bit overdone, no? Common good sir, try and see beyond your cursory dabble tempered by your years of expert mainstreaming. XO, ;-). -- Publicstorage (talk · contribs · logs) 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep To omit Rocketworld from the Designer Toy entries of Wikipedia would be an incredibly short sided decision. The definition of Designer Toys (as found on this site) is “Designer toys is a term used to describe toys and other collectables that are produced in limited editions (as few as 50 or as many as 2000 pieces) and created by artists and designers. Designer toys employ a variety of materials; plastic and vinyl are most common, although wood and metal are occasionally used. The term also encompasses plush, cloth dolls and latex. Creators of designer toys usually have backgrounds in graphic design, illustration or self-described low-brow art; some are classically trained in art and design, while others are self-taught. Designer toys first appeared in the 1990s and are a flourishing industry.” The toys created by Rocketworld are limited, created by a graphic designer (with art schooling), and made from vinyl. Obviously, they are Designer Toys since they fit the already established guidelines. The Eastern movement of this genre started in the late 80s to early 90s, but the Western movement really hit in the late 90s to early 2000s. It’s worth noting that Titus, Rocketworld’s first toy debuted at this time and was the start of one of the first continuing lines of Designer Toys. Not all Designer Toys need to have “earth shattering” principles. Take Qees for example. These toys are undisputable as a staple in the Designer Toy world, but don’t really do more than look nice. Rocketworld toys, however, have a solid design aesthetic as well as convey a message (like great art often does). Their tongue in cheek depiction brings attention to the problem of our world’s rapidly declining natural resources. Finally, it’s worth noting that Rocketworld is very active in the Designer Toy community. The creator, Patrick Ma, has been interviewed in documentaries such as “Toys Are Us”; and has been mentioned in numerous magazines, such as Juxtapoz, Entertainment Weekly, and Mass Appeal; and books such as MTV’s Overground 3: Toys, Dot Dot Dash, and I Am Plastic. The gallery at their California based store has art/toy openings bringing the community together and introducing new people to the genre. Rocketworld always has a booth (this year actually it was 2) at San Diego Comic Con, and the toys always sell out. All these points make it obvious that the Designer Toy community believes that Rocketworld is a legitimate part of the genre. Again, it would be extremely short sided to omit Rocketworld from the Designer Toy section of Wikipedia. Not only does the company fit the definition, it is a popular line loved my much of the community. Please see MillionairePlayboy.com articles. -- Jager-MPb (talk · contribs · logs) 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — Jager-MPb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete. Can't merge and delete, the edit history must be preserved. But merge/redirect is possible, and doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Life is Wild episodes

    edit
    List of Life is Wild episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm pretty sure a TV show with only one episode so far doesn't need a separate article for an episode list. Recommend merge and delete. shoy 16:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brighton Rangers F.C.

    edit
    Brighton Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This club does not seem to exist in the Brighton Hove and District Football League Premier Division. A quick check in this web page shows that the existence of this club is difficult to verify and non-existent. Moreover, it is not even a level 11 (or Step 7) club of the English football league system and thus have concerns over notability issues as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - also check out teams in the same league - Rottingdean Village F.C. and Ovingdean F.C. GiantSnowman 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Ovingdean yes definitely, nominate them. Rottingdean's first team is now in the Sussex County League Division Three, level 11 so they may be a bit more borderline but probably still would be a delete from me. - fchd 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They certainly used to exist, last year they finished fourth in the Brighton & Hove League (and third and fifth in Division One in the two previous seasons), but they don't appear to be active this season. They don't make the "Level 10" grade we've previously frequently used as the bar of notability of English clubs, and with no other seeming claim to notability (I don't think this lot are the same Brighton Rangers who won the County Cup in 1882-83!), Delete. - fchd 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, we should now raise the bar of notability by creating articles on clubs in the level 11 (or step 7) of the English football league system. Thus, Rottingdean Village F.C. and Ovingdean F.C. should be kept. But Brighton Rangers F.C. should be deleted as it is not even in the Brighton Hove and District Football League Premier Division. The reason why I state that Step 7 clubs should have their own articles is because they are part of the National league system. Moreover, level 11 (or Step 7) clubs are eligible to compete in the FA Vase and FA National League System Cup competitions as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - very, very few clubs at level 11 are eligbile for the FA Vase - mainly due to the lack of lights etc. No clubs are eligble for the NLS Cup, it is merely league representative sides that compete for that trophy. Again, clubs aren't part of the National League System, league are. I'm perfectly comfortable with the split between level 10 and level 11 being a reasonable one for notable/non-notable, with of course any exceptional claims for notability from lower clubs being taken into account. And, I say this who is a great supporter of non-league football in England (and Wales), to well below level 11! Also, if notability is permament(and consensus is that it is), how can you justify your position that Ovingdean are notable as they are in the Brighton & Hove Premier this year, while Brighton Rangers are not, but they were in that division last year? - fchd 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Well, to be fair, I am not aware that Brighton Rangers F.C. was in the Brighton Hove and District Football League Premier Division last season. However, do you know in which division this club is in this season? --Siva1979Talk to me 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have returned to the article and edited it into a truthful account, with the aid of this reference here. Ref (chew)(do) 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per Richard's comments above, this team was certainly in the BH&DL last season but appears to have dropped out this year - maybe someone updated their article for this season before that happened....? Anyway, there's no evidence this team has ever played at a notable level, so delete ChrisTheDude 21:03, 13 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. PeaceNT 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Haverson

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

    A semiprofessional footballer who has never played a league game for his club Moglex 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's a semi-professional league. --Malcolmxl5 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. W.marsh 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Les Henderson

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

    Henderson doesn't meet the notability guidelines. His only claim to "fame" seems to be self-publishing two books and being involved in a couple of lawsuits. SandyHand 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep While that may be his only claim to fame, his claim to notability certainly warrants a Wikipedia article, as evidenced by the sources cited in the article. He has been the primary subject of several different references in reliable sources for separate reasons. I see no issue with keeping this article, given the sources listed in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep He's a pretty well known consumer activist. I'm also suspicious of User:SandyHand's motivation as the article HAS been repeatedly vandalised. Shritwod 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I haven’t been around Wikipedia too long, but I don’t think being mentioned once in a New York Post article and once in a local paper makes him notable. Looks like the guy is just using Wikipedia to promote his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesullivan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In response to User:BelovedFreak’s comment: I’m a real boy, not a sockpuppet! I travel a lot and use a wireless card in my laptop, and I never bothered to register with WP before – it just didn’t seem important. Obviously, now I wish I had. Given my lack of verifiable history, I can understand User:Shritwod’s suspicion of my motives, but I have never made any contributions or changes to Henderson’s article. I came to the article by way of Lou Pearlman after hearing about him in the news.
    Here’s why I think Henderson isn’t notable.
    1. He had to publish his books himself. Not one publisher would put out either of his books. Doesn’t that tend to show that the works aren’t notable or of interest to the general public?
    2. He hasn’t received press coverage on his own. While he has been mentioned in the New York Post, the Gainesville Sun and the Orlando Weekly, all of those articles were primarily about someone else. Look at the titles: “Louie Wasn’t ’N Sync,” “Book: Crist Tried to Whitewash Probe” and “Pearlman’s Jihad.” The Washington Post was also listed as a source, but the free article preview doesn’t mention Henderson. (Maybe he’s somewhere in the rest of the article, but I didn’t want to pay to find out.)
    3. Lawsuits don’t confer notability. Yes, Henderson sued Pearlman. But if being involved in some kind of legal action were reason enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, we’d have to deal with a bunch of frivolous articles. (More than we already do, I mean!)
    4. Several references are iffy. Are unjustis.co.uk, fraudsandscams.com and crimes-of-persuasion.com – the subject’s own site – reliable sources?
    If you publish a book accusing a famous person of something, you’re bound to get some media attention – that’s the sort of thing reporters live for! I have no idea if the stuff in Henderson’s books is true or not, and I don’t think it matters here.
    I don’t have anything against this guy personally – in fact, I admire his persistence and dedication. I think he definitely has a place in Wikipedia – as a part of the Lou Pearlman article, maybe. I just don’t think he’s notable in his own right. SandyHand 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to respond to these:
    1. Simply because one aspect of a person's life does not make them notable, does not mean they aren't notable for other reasons. For example: David Berkowitz was a postal worker. To say that he can't have an article because he was a postal worker is silly. Likewise, simply because this guy published his own books means that he can't be notable for that reason. Just like Berkowitz was notable for reasons OTHER than being postal worker, Les Henderson can be notable for reasons OTHER than being a self-published author.
    2. No where in the notability guidelines does it say that the coverage must be by ones self. Wikipedia guidelines only say that the corverage is multiple (he is in the media for several different events) and non-trivial (while he is not the sole item covered in the articles, his coverage was significant), and in reliable sources (The New York Post, Washington Post, Orlando Journal Sentinel, etc. are all notable)
    3. Really? While not every lawsuit confers notability, some certainly DO. Consider Dred Scott, whose sole notability comes from a lawsuit.
    4. True, but that calls for cleanup, not deletion. While there are some sources of iffy reliability, there are also some sources of unquestionable reliability. The existance of bad sources does not cancel out the existance of good sources.
    The fact remains that notability is not determined by the substance of WHY a person is notable. According to the notability guidelines, what makes someone notable is nto what they did, but who NOTICED what they did and what the WROTE about it. If a subject has been a focus of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources, they are notable REGARDLESS of what they did to earn that coverage. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Obfuscating ones original destination computer IP via wireless aircards does not work for the USSS, dear Billiam. Neither does having Bulgarian DJ/webmaster friends. --SooperJoo 15:09, 13 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 keep. AfD seems to be only to make a point. Espresso Addict 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead white males

    edit
    Dead white males (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article has no sources, also Dead black males has been nominated for deletion. Erwin Morland 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep This seems to be a WP:POINT-y nomination to me. Even a cursory search of google news for "dead white (men OR males)" turns up a number of sources ([12] [13] [14] [15]). Further, any search of literature (via google scholar for the same term) turns up a plethora of sources ([16] [17] [18], to choose 3 more or less at random). A need for sourcing or cleanup is not grounds for deletion. (PS: My rationale for calling this POINT-y isn't a PA, my reasons are shown in this diff). --Bfigura (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur, Speedy keep as the article appears to have been nominated to make a WP:POINT. --TeaDrinker 05:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Derrick Rose

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

    Fails WP:SPORT. This person doesn't meet Notability sports for basketball, notability for amateur sports. He isn't in any professional team, no awards, no media attention from any nationally recognized media organizations (cnn, espn, etc.). Fails WP:BIO minimum requirements threshold. Does not meet general inclusion. No awards or honors, no significant recognized events or coverage of this person, doesn't appear in mainstream media (cnn, fox, radio, espn). Also doesn't meet criteria for "additional criteria", hasn't performed professional league or equivalent, hasn't performed in highest level of amature level (college NCAA). The person doesn't appear in top 10 list of Google search Derrick Rose basketball  - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    he's in C-USA a NCAA Division 1... just to let you know - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies

    edit
    Healthy_Mothers_Healthy_Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    I created article with wrong name (should be "National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition.") Additionally, it looks like this is a fishery-industry-backed non-profit of little significance except for their one marketing attempt at trying to get pregnant women/mothers to eat more fish than otherwise reccomended. [23] --Zeke pbuh 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep: the objection (being redlink-only DAB page) has been removed. Mukadderat 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neagra

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

    Disambiguation page that contins only red links. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Champion (song)

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

    Deletion nomination This is a non-notable song. Article shows no evidence that this song has any independant notability besides the artist that recorded it, the album it appears on, and the song it samples (incorrectly identified, I might add. The song by Steely Dan is "Kid Charlemagne"). Since this song lacks any independant notability, the article should be either deleted or redirected to the artist who performs it or album it appears on. Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It describes the song. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HLyford11 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Simply because something exists does not mean that it deserves an article at Wikipedia. I exist. I certainly haven't done anything to warrent an article. The princple is that an article needs to be about something that has recieved non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. This song does not appear to have received that coverage. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you withdrew this nomination, I still think it should continue. The song still has no potential to expand. It can easily be mentioned in the album. Spellcast 08:20, 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 keep. Neil ☎ 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vachon wrestling family

    edit
    Vachon wrestling family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not a family in need of a seperate article, an infobox similar to the Hart family may be a better way of connecting the articles. Information from this page should be worked into the main articles. Darrenhusted 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep If "the family was the subject of a documentary" then there is some evidence of separate notability for the family. JJL 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The individual family members are probably notable, but this family is nowhere near the levels of the Hart family or the Von Erich family. Possibly redirect to one of the members (the father or the daughter, I think the daughter is the most notable). And move it to Vachon family if it's kept. --UsaSatsui 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom. Nikki311 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've added five cited references to the article, specifically those refering to family members as part of the "legendary Vachon wrestling family" or refering to the family as prominent within professional wrestling. To be fair, regarding the statement of the above editor, the references already provided support the Vachon family to be on equal ground with the Hart family or the Von Erichs. 209.213.84.10 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Vachon family is nowhere near as significant as the other wrestling families discussed here. Many wrestlers have relatives involved in the business, but stub articles that do little more than link to the invidividual articles don't help. GaryColemanFan 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it's got enough sources to satisfy the notability & verifiability criteria. Yes it could be expanded and improved but deletion isn't really going to neither expand nor improve it. It could for example be expanded to cover their Kayfabe brother Stan Vachon who doesn't warrant his own article but should be mentioned on the family page. MPJ-DK 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is arguably a family more deserving of a page than, say, the Dudley family, it's just older. There is a definite legacy there, as Mad Dog, Butcher and Vivian were a dominant force in the AWA (which was, in its day, comparable to at least WCW in scope). Then Luna was the first female to have one-on-one matches with heavyweight men in ECW and WWF, long before Chyna. This article fills a gap. There are members who don't have their own pages, and their info can't be stuffed into a navbox. It does need to be fleshed out, but keep.TravelingCat 06:21, 13 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. Nobody has produced an argument to defend the rank OR problems with this article. Given the keep comments are all (bar one) "per Bikeable", who subsequently changed his argument to "merge", there is little in favour of keeping. And Gandalf61's argument is not convincing. Asserting something is not OR but failing to provide any evidence to back up that assertion is never convincing. Consensus - rooted in policy - is clearly to not retain this article. None of Wiktionary, Wikisaurus or Wikibooks would accept this as they do not want original research, so a transwiki is out (other wikiprojects are not our dumping grounds). There are already examples on the Snowclones article, so I don't think a merge is necessary, although I will userfy this article should someone really want some further examples in there (I would strongly suggest you'd be better finding referenced ones elsewhere, if any exist). Neil ☎ 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of snowclones

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

    One big original research. The term "snowclone" is itself a frest 4-year old neologism, and this list is an unreferenced collection of things that fit the neologism, i.e., it is a wikipedian's conclusion taht they constitune slowclone, i.e., it is original research `'Míkka 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep because (i) it is a useful navigational list; (ii) membership criteria is clear - it is obvious when a phrase is a snowclone; (iii) reason for nomination is not logical - a list is an extended category; adding articles to a category is not OR; so adding entries to a list is not OR; (iv) last AfD was less than 6 months ago and keep decision was unconditional. Could be trimmed back to entries with reference or underlying article. Gandalf61 10:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (i) navigational? we don't have separate articles for each snowclone (ii) "clear", "obvious" means original research. It is not at all clear (iii) list is not extended category. (iv) for 6 months the list did not become referenced non-OR. It was kept by ILIKEIT voting. "Could be trimmed back" means it was and will be a magnet for OR, because it is "clear" and "obvious" for some. `'Míkka 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response (ii) clear and obvious membership criteria means that no research is required to determine whether a phrase is a snowclone - it is immediately obvious from the definition; (iii) WP:CLS says that categories and lists are two (out of five) ways of grouping articles; (iv) previous keep decision was not conditional on any changes to the list - if you felt the decision to keep was incorrect or should have been conditional, you should have initiated a deletion review, not a new AfD. Gandalf61 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ii) "immediately obvious" is for you. I could have given you guys some slack if it were a well-established concept, but it is a neologism and I have no reason to believe that your opinion is valid, not to say mainstream (iii) "two ways of grouping articles" is not "list is an extended category". What is more, please explain which articles are grouped by the discussed list (iv) DRV is for restoring deleted pages. Previous nominations ignored the issue of Original Research. `'Míkka 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion". And what do you mean by "you guys" ? You seem to be personalising this debate, which can only harm your case. Anyway, I have explained my position, so I am out of here. Gandalf61 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. It had been redirected, but the redirect is orphaned and probably not useful in the long run. --Coredesat 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Sunset Beach soap connections

    edit
    List of Sunset Beach soap connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - Wikipedia is not IMDB. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of actors who have appeared on a particular soap opera and another soap opera. Otto4711 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus for Disinformation (art and music project) and Delete Rorschach Audio . Electronic voice phenomena (EVPs) are sometimes referred to as "Rorschach audio," after the psychological test in which subjects read their own interpretation of inkblot images.[25] This provides confusion with the research artwork topic run by "Disinformation." Consensus is that the topic for Rorschach Audio lacks source material that is independent of control of the the group Disinformation to meet general notability guidelines. Regarding Disinformation (art and music project), the article lists many references, none of which is connected to the text in the article. However, there was little to no discussion on the merits of each of the article listed references in the context of whether there was sufficient reliable source material, independent of Disinformation, to maintain a Wikipedia article on the topic. Ignoring the SPAs, the discussion was not clear as to whether Disinformation (art and music project) met general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disinformation (art and music project) and Rorschach Audio

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Disinformation (art and music project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Rorschach Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Two audio art projects of dubious notability which came to my attention after revert warring over whether they should be nominated for speedy deletion. There is a notability claimed but it is in some fairly obscure sources. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep the Disinformation page as the exhibits have generated coverage in The Independent, The Guardian and The Financial Times. The contents of the article need a tidy up; most of it seems like unsourced original research and it's written more like a promo than an encyclopedia article. Rorschach Audio should probably be merged into the Disinformation article as there's a lot of overlap, it wouldn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, and the sources are publications of the artist rather than substantial independent coverage. Thomjakobsen 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as shameless promo and COnflict of interest. If a verifiable text may be written, it is better be started from scratch. If the projects are notable, someone else must write it sooner or later. Míkka 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both articles are written by sock puppets (new one each day) of the main subject 'Joe Banks'. The users add items then disappear. Both articles belong on a private website and not here. They are essays and certainly not neutral. Very repetitive a. if you read the press coverage, notability is still questionable. (as a side note, his sock puppets are also involved in shameless edits to Tacita Dean, and Lise Autogena, using those articles to claim provenance for disinformation. If article is to be retained - it must be highly edited. I suggest a fresh start is better. Redisburys 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) If i'm allowed a vote, delete both Redisburys 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC) How can an article that long and that edited not have a talk page - unless the editors are the same person? -- Redisburys (talk · contribs · logs) 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Redisburys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep - The Rorschach Audio page as the material on this page clearly relates to a serious research project which has already satisfied standards for academic peer-review, eg - the connection that the Rorschach Audio page claims to having been published in Leonardo Music Journal (an academic journal) by The MIT Press and supported by The Arts and Humanities Research Council, both check out. Sam Blacketer's claim that these projects are "dubious" itself seems therefore dubious, and his (or her) comments should therefore be disregarded. Although Thomjakobsen broadly supports keeping these pages, his claim that the articles contain "unsourced original research" seems hasty, as extensive citations are provided in both the Rorschach Audio and Disinformation (art and music project) articles - in the latter, sleeve notes are included within quotation marks and the CDs from which these sleevenotes are quoted are clearly cited. Redisburys claim that the articles are "repetitive" is palpably false, and his (or her) other allegations should be considered in this light; that "users add items then disappear" a/ proves nothing and b/ upon checking seems to be a comment that Redisburys is making about himself! -- Emulant (talk · contribs · logs) 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Emulant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • User:Emulant being another sock puppet? CoI? Redisburys 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "extensive citations", from what I can see, are written by the subject of the article (also the creator, judging from the edit history) and so don't qualify as independent secondary sources, regardless of whether they appear in journals or not. Primary sources have their uses, but when you base an article around your own interpretation of them, that's original research. You can read about it in more detail at WP:OR. The problem's even worse if, as others have noted, all the editors are sockpuppets of the Joe Banks in the article. In that case, you're basically writing an essay and quoting yourself to back it up, and there are problems of conflict of interest. It'd be a whole lot easier in the long run just shelling out on a proper website and posting the promo material there. Thomjakobsen 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and keep, but cut back extensively - the credentials check out, but the tone and excessive length of coverage are clearly promotional. And the sockpuppetry and COI need stamping on, hard. Gordonofcartoon 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and keep. Per Gordonofcartoon. I think there are enough sources, though it is just on the edge, but it needs cutting from the looks of it. Disinformation (art and music project) does not seem to use sources. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Being recognized by academia as an arts project is fine. However, the way Rorschach Audio is written, it is presented as scientific research, which requires very different academic recognition--which it has not received. Meanwhile the article is used largely to attack Electronic Voice Phenomena. It is clear that this is a self-promoting attempt to say things in Wikipedia about EVP that would not stand in the EVP article. Even if you merge it with the second article, it remains an art-based comment about EVP that would not stand the test of NPOV. If you do anything other than delete the article, then I suggest that you merge it with the EVP article. Judging by the quality of its references, I expect it will be quickly edited out. Tom Butler 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that, if the article is not deleted, then after it is released for editing, it must be subject to the same rules applied to other articles concerning neutral point of view, verifiable references, original research and conflict of interest. The article moves from describing a work of art, which is off-limits to academic criticism in my mind, to a nonfiction, academic article with this statement alone: ""Rorschach Audio" offers the primary hypothesis that an understanding of the relevant aspects of psychoacoustics provides a complete explanation for most EVP recordings,...." There are other problem statements, but it will save us a lot of time if we just ask for that statement to meet wiki standards. I might propose an alternative solution to deletion. That is, to merge the article with the EVP article, since it is a clear-cut criticism of EVP it belongs there. -- Tom Butler 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean a link to it as a definition of a term--cut and paste. As the article stands now, I see it as an effort to camouflage a simple fabrication of explanations as art so that it does not have to be properly vetted. At the very least, there needs to be a tag placed on the article indicating that it includes unsubstantiated claims. Following some of the editing practices I have seen in the past, whole blocks of it can be properly deleted as being unsubstantiated. For instance, the loaded statement: "... (the name Disinformation is used in the spirit of what Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to as the "Liar Paradox". The research into (mostly Very Low Frequency band) radio science that was required to realise early Disinformation LPs and CDs etc provided the technical experience necessary to explain the source and behaviour of the stray radio signals that form the subject matter of EVP research...." Where is the research supporting that statement? Why have none of the wiki lawyers not demanded that he support such comments? One more interesting statement: "Nonetheless "Rorschach Audio" is an active and ongoing research project, and (under the terms of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) every writer has a (moral and legal) right to be accurately credited as the author of their own work, and the author of "Rorschach Audio" is no exception." Based on that, the author has conflict of interest and all of the work is original research. There simply is no reason to keep this article unless it is intended to set a new precidence. Tom Butler 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it needs sourcing, as several have noted. You could go through it and put citation requests on each uncited paragraph. After a few weeks, if they remain uncited, the info can properly be deleted. Technically, it could be deleted now, but that would cause angst. The only reason for keeping it is that it seems to be notable: it has been mentioned in sources outside of itself. So I don't think there is a technical reason to delete it. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some editors here are missing my point. And being rather rude about it in the process, I might add. Is that how art platoons always behave? The Rorschach Audio article is specifically designed to show that certain theories explain the experiences called EVP, specifically that idea of a "Liar Paradox". If you refer to the Electronic voice phenomena article, you will see that it is written as a balance of opinion between EVP being the mundane mistaken as phenomenal or paranormal. The Rorschach Audio is used as a reference for the mundane argument. I see no problem with that, as it is a valid theory that should be tested, but when I look at the article, I see no evidence, no research, only art by one guy who claims copyright of his art. That as a reference is circular logic. The Rorschach Audio article is fine if it is not taken as evidential. As an alternative to deleting it if you all think it is okay for self-advertisements as articles in Wikipedia, either established support for the claims or those claims must be deleted. Looking at the article, I see that little of it will be left. Tom Butler 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think notability is satisfied for the subject of these two articles, though I have no opinion as to whether the articles should be merged. Certainly deleting their histories is unnecessary. ScienceApologist 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author claims this is AHRC funded research. The AHRC list all award holders online. Whatever term I search, I find no reference; I've tried the subject, author and even keywords. www.ahrc.ac.uk /awards/ -- Redisburys 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's there. They clearly have a crap search engine. Go here, click Sort List By ... Holder, and you find "6. Rorschach Audio: The Reality of Auditory and Visual Illusions, Amount awarded: £234484, Award Holder Name: Mr. Joseph Banks, Institution: University of London, Date Awarded: 02/03/2007". Gordonofcartoon 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both pages. Critics of these pages - "Sam Blacketer" and "Redisburys" are SOCK PUPPETS of user "JPortway" - real name (artist) Joshua Portway. One page is about a music and art group, the other page is about debunking parapsychological research, so, although there is some overlap, merging the 2 pages would produce a very confusing hybrid (and these pages don't "promote" their subjects any more or less than any other pages about any eg - music or art groups). As Gordonofcartoon has proven (22:21, 11 October 2007 UTC, below) Redisburys was not telling the truth when he claimed that the credentials referenced in the Rorschach Audio page don't check out. One could only speculate about Redisburys motive for misrepresenting this discussion, but all Redisburys' claims should be regarded as suspect. -- 158.223.31.56 (talk · contribs · logs) 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — 158.223.31.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • That was not my implication. The AHRC site search engine fails to find Banks' entry, even with reasonable keywords, and I see no reason to assume anything more than that Redisburys ran into the same problem. I only found it by being geeky and skimming the list manually. Gordonofcartoon 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, not my intention to mislead, but it really does not show up using their search feature. One tends to trust such features to work. Joe - check this and talk to the AHRC. I note, thought, this is funding for a min of three years, which has only *recently* been awarded. If it needs a page would this not be AFTER or towards the end of the research -- when something has been found. I should point out that unsigned comment IP is Goldsmiths' College (Joe Banks). Redisburys 11:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably pointless, but I'd also like to assert that I (Joshua Portway) have no idea who Redisbury is (he's not me), and that it's plainly ridiculous to think that I'm Sam Blacketer. The only account I have on Wikipedia is this one (Jportway). As I told you in the email I sent you Joe, I have contacted everyone that I could and let them know that I didn't think that deleting your page was a good idea. Hopefully the people who I contacted can verify that here - I'm sorry everyone if that seems petty, but I really, really don't want this to be the start of another ridiculous paranoid vendetta.--Jportway 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems strange to me that when an article throws up questions about itself the users don't produce attempts at answers and clarifications but instead adopt a stalinist stance to entirely purge the article from wiki history - why focus with such vitriol on this particular entry when so many entries contain far more overtly unreliable or promotional material. Why do the questioners feel so passionate about excising this particular page? Let the article stand and let those that question it flag up the claims they question - isn't that the point of Wikipedia - infinitely editable - each article getting refined by more input? Plenty of pages blatantly promoting cultural product elsewhere, why target this one? This doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything to anyone. Interesting use of phrase - "dubious notability" - Disinformation has clearly featured in many key arts publications, galleries and arts festivals across Europe and beyond for a decade or more. I'd say that would constitute "notable", so the use of the word "dubious" seems very loaded to me in this context - what's the agenda? Csawza (talk · contribs · logs) 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) — Csawza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep these pages! It's no surprise that a project that critiques belief that the dead speak to us through household appliances (EVP) attracts hostility from people who are a few cards short of a full deck. Before Redisburys, the last person to vandalize the Disinformation page was a lunatic with the username LOLLERCAUST11 (20 Aug 07) whose "edits" consisted of replacing Wikipedia pages with redirects to the terms "Nazi" and "Jew"; and it's interesting to see this guy Joshua Portway finally identify himself - he wouldn't have even known about this debate, let along contacted anyone about it, if he hadn't been covertly involved in it all along. I'm not impressed by sock puppets who accuse other people of sock puppetry, or by critics who can't even spell the word "delete". I found both pages informative and well-written, for that reason alone they should be kept. SmashyPond 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — SmashyPond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Hello "SmashyPond". I'm going to be generous and assume that you aren't the subject of the article and that you genuinely don't know any better, despite the oddly paranoid tone of your posting being unusual for a disinterested observer. The reason I haven't taken part in this discussion before is that, for reasons that should be starting to become obvious, I didn't want to be involved in anything to do with deleting this page. I really don't care much whether these pages stay or go, and I was well aware that I would become the target of these kind delusional accusations if the page was deleted. Unfortunately, given the historical precedent, I suspect that if this page is deleted then I will be the target of the resulting tantrums outside the playpen of Wikipedia and I just have better things to do with my life than deal with that kind of crap. I have indeed been "involved all along" as you claim - but not in trying to get this page deleted. A couple of other people who have commented on this page already know some of the history behind this, and I am being very restrained in not publicly posting the whole sad story to this page because it would be extremely embarrassing for the subject of this article. However, if there's any more silliness in this thread (especially by apparently newly created accounts) claiming that I'm somehow victimizing Mr. Banks (and associating me with Nazi vandalism) I will be tempted to explain it all here just to show how nice I'm actually being to him. If you like, Smashypond, you are welcome to email me (as is anyone else - I'll put my address on my user page) so I can disabuse you of these conspiracy theories.--Jportway 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — Jportway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep - both texts have satisfied tests for notability and verifiability. As to neutrality, issues of vandalism and censorship (by critics of these pages) are just as important, so any argument for deletion is totally OTT. Even if we accept the criticisms at face value, the most critics could argue is that these texts may need the standard Wikipedia tag for reading like a news release, at worst some of these critics have shown their own testimonies to be surreal and dubious AZLEY 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — AZLEY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This naturally does not preclude cleanup and merge proposals on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdish-Israeli relations

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

    Page discussed at a prior AFD, with a poor quality discussion. After deletion, DRV discussion resulted in overturning the decision for this relisting. While my nomination is technical, I opine below. GRBerry 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Contrary to some previously expressed opinions, sub-national units can have diplomatic relations worthy of encyclopedia coverage. For example, see Aroostook War, in which a single state of the United States declared war on a foreign country. However, in the case of this article, that whole issue is irrelevant, as the article is not really about diplomatic relations. The drafted article is about the history of interactions between Jews or modern Israel and Kurds/Kurdish parties. By text it is a sub-article of History of the Kurdish people, not in the diplomatic relations series. Coverage about the ten tribes story is already in Ten Lost Tribes#The Kurds and Origins of the Kurds#Connection with the Jewish People. All of the rest of this article could, and should, be similarly housed elsewhere. I don't see anything that is sufficiently well supported to just merge elsewhere. I therefore propose that we delete the article and redirect to History of the Kurdish people. GRBerry 13:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all of the above (sort of). I do believe that articles with such titles should only refer to the diplomatic relations of countries, or even better a different naming scheme should be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Rewrite. This article does not reflect its title at all. The content should be merged with appropriate articles, and the article should be stubified, if it should be kept. DenizTC 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per nom and per following:
    1 I think it should be made crystal clear that (un-)(semi-)official bi- or multilateral diplomatic relations can be had, and be encyclopedically notable, between any political entities, especially of such a quasi/de facto state as Iraqi Kurdistan, regardless of their affiliation with the United Nations and/or of general international recognition.
    2 The current contents of the article should be split and merged:
    2aKurdish-Israeli relations#Relations => Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan
    2b Kurdish-Israeli relations#The genetic bond claim between Kurds and Jews => Origins of the Kurds#Connection with the Jewish People.
    2c Kurdish-Israeli relations#Jews in Kurdistan & Kurdish-Israeli relations#Kurds in Israel => History of the Kurdish people#Modern history of the Kurds
    3 Redirect [[Kurdish-Israeli relations]] to Foreign relations of Israel#Iraqi Kurdistan
    --Victor falk 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This page should be deleted as per reasons I mentioned on the previous nom (I will not repeat myself). There is nothing on the article that is worth a merge. There shouldn't be a leftover redirect as a redirect would serve to no purpose. This is neither a common way to referance "Kurdish history" or "Foreign relations of Israel" or a commons misspelling. A redirect would probably be controversial as well without the content. Redirects can be controversial no doubt but not for the purpose of being controversial only. -- Cat chi? 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • keep/rename into a title that does not allude to official inter-national foreign relations, something like Relations of Israel and Kurds or Ties between Israel and Kurds. As seen from the article, the topic is valid. The nominator themselves writes "The drafted article is about the history of interactions between Jews or modern Israel and Kurds/Kurdish parties." And I fail to see why this "history of interactions" cannot be in a separate article, since it is a clearly separate subject, with sufficient amount of verifiable information to fill a page. Mukadderat 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Such an article would be fine but not with the current content (per nom). -- Cat chi? 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      What about just Kurdish-Israeli relations#Relations (point 2a in my proposal)?--Victor falk 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Most of it is OR, remaining is not a Kurdish-Israeli relation. It may be an Iraq-Israeli relation (Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan is a part of Iraq according to everyone and themselves) and a seperate Turkey-Israeli (PKK never claimed to be a country. If it received any international help that can be talked about in Kurdistan Workers Party) relation. If it must be covered in seperate articles... there can be articles on PKK-Israel or KDP-Israel relations in a non A-B relations format. In a nutshell the relationship is between governing bodies and not "people" in general. -- Cat chi? 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      I see your point and I agree they are not "Kurdish-Israeli relations", but like you say between Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel; refining Mukkaderat's proposal above, what would you say about Ties between Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan? --Victor falk 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, Iraq is a mess. This is a complicated manner. My statements aren't intended to have loaded meanings. Let me clarify some important points on the topic at hand. Agree/disagree if you will.
      • Between the first and second Iraq war involving the US, there were two factions (KDP and PUK) in control of North of Iraq due to a power vacuum as a result of the northern no-fly zone. These two factions were at a state of war between each other for most of the time and at times one or the other were nearly annihilated. Weather that constitutes as a defacto country or two different defacto countries or none at all may be up for debate. I dare not venture to close to that heated debate.
      • After the second Iraq war involving the US the entities in North of Iraq have merged and pledged loyalty to the Iraqi government and are recognised as an entity under the central government of Baghdad, Iraq. Neither PUK nor KDP ever claimed to be a country ever since. California is an entity under Washington DC's rule. Relations of California with other non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here) is always conducted through Washington DC and is a relation between US and the non-US entities (Countries, or what ever goes here). So the coverage should be likewise.
      I feel the coverage of "pre 1st Iraq war" era, "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war" era, "post 2nd iraq war" era relationships should NOT be covered together. Dynamics of the eras are significantly different. Aside from "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era", there was/is no entity in Iraq that can have any relationship with any entity without using Baghdad. Not certain if "post 1st Iraq war & pre 2nd Iraq war era" can have real relations either and it may be better to cover the related material on a history-related article. Perhaps histories of KDP and PUK.
      -- Cat chi? 21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is a Kurdistan and a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kurdistan. What is currently called Kurdistan is actually broken down into 3 regions/entities an automous entity called Iraqi Kurdistan; another entity is called Turkish Kurdistan and many in that region have aspirations for independence/separation and it has separatist/terrorist groups; another entity called Iranian Kurdistan and many people in that region have aspirations for independence/separation and it has separatist/terrorist groups. The nominator for the previous AFD already acknowledged that "A-B relations" aren't only for countries. In order to make this non-arbitrary, "A-B relations" should be permitted for any entity that has relations with another entity. By these rules, "A-B relations" should be permitted for each of the three entities as they have had relations with other entities. Iraqi Kurdistan opens liason offices for other countries and also benefitted from unofficial aid in terms of weapons and other materiel. Various terrorist/separatist groups in Turkish Kurdistan has in the past and possibly present benefited from unofficial aid in terms of weapons and other materiel. And various terrorist/separatist groups in Iranian Kurdistan currently recieve unofficial aid in terms of weapons and material from Israel. The question now is whether we need 1 article, 3 articles, or several articles (with each article representing the separatist/terrorist group). In my view, 1 article is the best as it's not always the case where only a certain terrorist/separatist group in one region is having the relations. In terms of this particular article, we've seem plenty of news about Israel co-operating with Iranian Kurds. Rather than an "Israeli-Iranian Kurds relations" it makes more sense to call the article "Israeli-Kurdish relations". The article could be structured similar to Japan-Korea_relations. Korea in and of itself isn't a country but actually two countries. Whenever we create articles about "Kurdish-Other entity" relations, we would take into account the three regions in the same manner as which the Japan-Korea article took into account the two countries. Just because the current article is poorly written isn't a reason to delete it as I believe the article can be improved. Pocopocopocopoco 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Not similar at all. Both Koreas are UN recognised countries. A-B relations to date has been reserved for country relationships on wikipedia. None of the so called Kurdistans claim to be a country. Treating them like countries would be soapboxy WP:OR. Any raid by Israel to any organization can be discussed on the article on the organizations. A breakaway article can also be created if the organization articles get too long. -- Cat chi? 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      Don't interpret this as criticism directed at you but I don't understand why you're flip-flopping on whether or not non-countries are allowed in "A-B relations". In the previous AFD you first said that it should be for countries, later on in the same AFD you said it that something like "PKK-Hezbollah relations" are OK and unrecognized de-facto entities are OK. Now you're saying that it should be for UN recognized countries. Also, I brought up the Korea article as an example of how "Kurdish-Other entity relations" article could be structured. Pocopocopocopoco 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      don't forget Taiwan...--Victor falk 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not say "it should be for UN recognized countries". I did say "do not compare relations between UN recognised countries" and others. As for Republic of China (Taiwan is no country) it was one of the founders of the UN and was later de-recognised. That entity claims to be a country and should be treated as such as per WP:NPOV. An inter-organization relation is fine because it's scope is well defined but this still would not be an A-B relationship. An inter-ethnic diplomatic relationship is problematic conceptually. Even countries only "represent" their citizens. When you toss in "Kurdish" there and since there is a lack of "Kurdish government" (no one claims the existence of one that can have diplomatic relations) you are implying directly or indirectly a relationship between Kurds as a whole even though the relationship is between a few select organizations such as the PUK or KDP. -- Cat chi? 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      As I mentioned I wasn't comparing Kurdistan with Korea but suggesting that the structure of the article could be similar when this one is rewritten. I also think that you can't compare Kurds with Korea but you also shouldn't compare Kurds with African Americans which you seem to be suggesting as many Kurds in the three countries (Iraq, Turkey, and Iran) seem to be trying to assert their independence. I think that a fairer comparison is Waziristan and I see no problem with articles such as Waziristan-Afgan relations if they were created. Also you seem to suggest that something like PJAK-Israeli relations would be OK however Kurdish-Israeli relations is not OK. I think it's better to just have the article say Kurdish-Israeli relations as you might end up with a host of articles with overlapping information. Pocopocopocopoco 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not know what Waziristan supposed to be but Afghanistan is a UN recognized country. African Americans are a nationless ethnicity so I see no difference. A group of people seeking an independence is completely irrelevant so long as they have not achieved this. Once and if there is an independent country the articles can then be easily created. Wikipedia is not a christal ball. -- Cat chi? 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      As for stuff like "PJAK-Israeli relations", fundamentally there are no problems with it but the coverage may be better of at PJAK as that article is quite short. If it gets long it can be broken up but thats a mere editorial decision. -- Cat chi? 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      I don't know why you seem to keep insisting that you see no difference between African Americans and Kurds on this issue:
      1. As mentioned Kurds have an autonomous region that seems to develop relations with other entities
      2. Kurds are an indigenous people trying to assert independence and in the process they have developed relations with other entities (including Israel).
      Also, Kurds seem to have relations with Israel not just in terms of PJAK, I found this without much effort searching. It can be used to beef up the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      As you agree Kurds are trying to assert independence which means they are not independent yet as they do not claim to be independent. Therefore they cannot develop any kind of relations with anybody by very nature. Israel will not have a relationship with an entity it does not recognize diplomatically to a degree. Israel covert operations in Iraq and Iran is article worthy but this is not really a "relation" between Kurds but with Iraq at best.
      Even if such an entity claiming to be independent existed, that would be a relationship between that entity and the country. It would not be a relationship with Kurds in general. Ethnicities cannot have relationships, only governments can. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL
      -- Cat chi? 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      You seem to be arguing for a binary policy on "A-B articles" where if it's a country or an organization such as PKK or PJAK it's OK but if it's a people then it's not OK. I don't think this is a good idea and every case whether it's a people or an organization or a country should be allowed to have "A-B relations" articles based on it's merits. Pocopocopocopoco 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - As said in the previous one, Basque relations with another nation would be relevant. In specific, I'm thinking of, say, the Basque-French relationship (the Basque region, while multinational, is mostly in Spain); while there's no article on it, it would be very encyclopedic. For example, during the Franco era, the relationship was complex to the point where France often (apparently) ignored Basque terrorists in a snub to the Spanish regime. However, after the Franco era, it all changed. This is incredibly important and equally encyclopedic, even if there's no article on it. If one people group relates different to a friend/enemy of its nation state, this is important. Similarly if the Quechua people (they span many present day South American nations) were to have a separate relationship with a historic enemy of their hosts, this would be worth an encyclopedia entry. We're out to maintain knowledge here, not get rid of it just because we don't like the way it looks. If necessary, the article can be renamed or, at best, changed to better reflect the fact that it's not a nation. But deleting this article would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 128.118.161.244 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — 128.118.161.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Shouldn't we be paying attention to the argument, not according to how many times this user has contributed? 64.178.96.168 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. If the argument is new, or contains new facts, it should be listened to accordingly. Arguments from new contributors that are a rehash of those by established users and contains no new facts, don't provide evidence as to how many people hold a particular opinion, because it is far too easy for one person to contribute with multiple accounts/IPs. There are some IP editors with stable IP addresses who are established users with a long edit history, but they are rarer than hen's teeth. GRBerry 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per myself from the previous AFD and Pocox4. It would've been nice if someone notified me about this. This article needs a rewrite not a deletion. I would like to point out that there is another Kurdish - x relations article, (see Kurdish-Armenian relations) which is well written and sourced. Is White Cat going to AFD that one as well? Also I'd like to point out that White Cat's whitewashing Wikipedia out of anything Kurdish related never stops [26] . VartanM 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This deletion was not initiated by me. I am ignoring your personal remarks as they have nothing to do with the AFD. -- Cat chi? 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      No personal attack was intended, that was just my observation of your editing pattern of Kurdish related articles. VartanM 08:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not the place for it. Feel free to file an RFC or an RFAR or use other means of WP:DR. -- Cat chi? 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The article is fine. But this AfD discussion is rather heated it seems. . .--S.dedalus 01:01, 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. W.marsh 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard Postero

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

    Unremarkable person -- not suitable for CSD. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Salem community theatre

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

    Non-notable theatre group. No WP:SOURCES, fails WP:V and WP:N Rackabello 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MeizuMe

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

    Non-notable fansite, vaguely asserts notability. Alexa rank is 89498. MER-C 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tal revivo

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

    Apparent vanity/advertising piece; not speedying/prodding, as a google search does show some hits in Hebrew, so it may be possible for a Hebrew-speaker to source & improve this. Nothing in English-language sources I can see to expand this from. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jooky

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

    Non-notable minor aspect of an advertising campaign. Article is essentially unverifiable, with about 20 ghits. I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody cares. MER-C 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A Good Man

    edit
    A Good Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - prod removed by WIkistalker without explanation. This is an article on an essay written by a non-notable person about a non-notable person published in a non-notable journal. In other words, fails WP:N. Otto4711 12:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment i think you'll find a comment in the edit summary that says, your issues with notability require improvement, then i replaced your prod with a request for expert attention from the psychology project. you then deleted the request for attention when you put this afd up. you don't know that this is not notable, beyond your own pov because you never gave it any time to be improved and cited. --Buridan 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD period is time for the article to be improved and cited. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    no afd is a process for deletion. to use afd to force improvement is to delete improvable content and it is inherently using bureacracy to bully people, which is against the spirit of wp as best as i can tell.--Buridan 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - WP:COATRACK -- Additionally, it doesn't have one non-wikipedia+mirror google hit. I didn't expect many because it claims to be an essay published in a journal but I expected atleast one. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete all a7, positive assertion of nonnotability: "The truth about Rhiannan T. is that she is not very well known. So she won't be able to be searched on the internet at all, because of that reason ." (from Rhiannan Teret Truth). NawlinWiki 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhiannan T.

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

    Contested prod. Unverifiable WP:BLP. No WP:RS provided. Possible hoax or vanity-spam. Evb-wiki 12:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page because it is unverifiable and no WP:RS is provided:

    Me's And Me's Couz Friend (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Evb-wiki 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all: Assuming it is a hoax (however, Rhiannan T. could contain sufficient information & notability to keep the article and would just need to be wikified, but again, assuming it is a hoax, delete). - Rjd0060 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect. W.marsh 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreams Call Out to Me

    edit
    Dreams Call Out to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I think this article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY. I couldn't find any good evidence that this song was released at all. See here, Evermore's official site doesn't even list this song as a released single! A search in Google and Sanity (online Australian music store) fails to produce any results. — *Hippi ippi 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL. PeaceNT 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Day 74

    edit
    Day 74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    "Day 74 is a First Person Shooter rumoured to be in development at Starbreeze Studios. This is however not true, Starbreeze Studios is currently not involved in this production." My crystal ball predicts the deletion of this unsourced and unverified article. MER-C 11:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecotarianism

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

    "The term "ecotarian" is relatively new and has not been noticeably appropriated into any popular cultural, economic, medical, or scientific context." Yep, indeed. MER-C 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was deletified. --Coredesat 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FEMAfied

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

    An article on various related neologisms. No evidence of widespread use beyond the original NYTimes article, compare google:FEMAfied, google:FEMAfication and google:FEMArati. MER-C 10:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete g7, see below, moving other game page back to this title. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Subversion (computer game)

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

    This is a non notable future game made as a school project with no reliable sources. Another future game, Subversion by Introversion Software, which IS notable, was moved without any discussion from this page by the creator of this new article. Darksun 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjd0060 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Ok, you can delete it. I'm inexperienced editing stuff on wikipedia. I understand we don't have any WP:NN, we're going to try and get some. You can delete it and move it back. When we're going to have those sources, we'll contact you. -

    Mile92 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: No verifiability, no sources, no WP:NN. This article dosen't relate to WP:CBALL. The notibility however is in question. -

    Wrapper 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, since there are no other contributions to the page, I've tagged it. - Rjd0060 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. If assistance is needed with the transwiki process, please feel free to contact me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Laze “Fixer” Loneozner

    edit
    Laze “Fixer” Loneozner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale

    Speculative article on a character cut from the film. Other related articles have been deleted.

    I'd rather see this go through AfD. Pascal.Tesson 10:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paddlewheel Excursions (formerly Western Cruise)

    edit
    Paddlewheel Excursions (formerly Western Cruise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N. Creator acknowledged at RFF that it is based entirely on his own experience. Adrian M. H. 10:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment But that would be OR!! This fails two policies and a guideline, all of which are crucial criteria for inclusion. You acknowledge that there are no independent RS, but that is precisely what it needs if it is to stay. And for the record, we are not interested only in online sources. Adrian M. H. 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hlema boland

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

    This person is not notable; see only two Google hits. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Corey Rice

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

    Single-event biography. Could not find any evidence that subject is notable outside his death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MER-C 09:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Coatigan

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

    Smells like some new idea by a fashion designer that hasn't caught on. Google fails to bring up anything useful. MER-C 09:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Change (Sugababes song)

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

    Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find a reliable source that describes the release of this song. The article mentioned that the release was confirmed by www.dailystar.co.uk, but I could not find anything in the site that confirms the release. Here are the Daily Star article search results for 'Sugababes' [29] — *Hippi ippi 09:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: No, it doesn't. And besides, that's not a reliable source. — *Hippi ippi 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Why else would the record company put it on all copies...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.127 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well it suggests that the record comapany must be considering releasing it, or it wouldn't mention it on the album cover. Sometimes plans change, but as it is, it looks like Change will be released next. If the next single is annocunced that it won't be change, you may as well delete the page. Otherwise you'll have egg on your faces when Change is announced a s a future single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.64.140 (talk) 20:06, 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 delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Books iRead

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

    Just another Facebook extension. There is nothing to suggest that this is in any way more notable than the other 4500 extensions out there (see, e.g. these 319 ghits). MER-C 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

    edit
    Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This "disambiguation" page was the subject of a prod. Its talk page reflects solid proof why it does not deserve to exist because it does not "disambiguate" between any articles but only links to outside dubious websites, violating WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It also seems to have been created to get around deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. See Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) for full discussion about problems, especially as noted by User:MPerel that "jewsagainstzionism.org is registered to Roland Rance and is a small secular group. The registration gives a contact address in London. It redirects to Jews Against Zionism. jewsagainstzionism.com is registered privately and anonymously via 3rd party GoDaddy.com and its ownership is therefore unknown and unverifiable. The unverifiable and anonymous jewsagainstzionism.com site is often confused with jewsnotzionists.com, the latter which is registered to Yisroel Weiss." And User:zzuuzz has stated: "This page was recently prod-deleted and restored. Until very recently it would have been a speedy deletion candidate, and it probably still is. Disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate between articles with potentially the same name. Here, there are no articles, not even one. I have no doubt this page would be deleted at AfD, and I'm slightly bemused as to why a restoration was requested. Is it going to start disambiguating articles, or shall we take a waltz through AfD?" This also violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is also bound to be a POV magnet. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A disambiguation page which doesn't "disambiguate" anything at all. Nick mallory 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I created this disambig page in order to remove a clear ambiguity. IZAK is mistaken in his assumption that the page was "created to get around deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews".The problem is that there are several groups, both religious and secular, using the name Jews Against Zionism. A number of other articles refer to the secular group Jews Against Zionism, but before the disambiguation page was created links on the pages were redirected to the article on the religious group Neturei Karta (which does not actually use this name). This was clearly inappropriate, and it was necessary to clartify this. I believe that the individual groups are notable enough to merit their own articles, and I could write one on the secular group. I am reluctant to do so because I am a leading activist in the group, and this could be seen as self-promotion; but, if other editors agree that this could be acceptable, then I will produce a draft, in as NPOV a way as I can. in the hope that others will amend and improve it. Given the background, I think that it would be a mistake to delete this page, and to further the ambiguities. RolandR 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Roland: While your edits may have gone in one direction, the recent edits by Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) [30] [31] were clearly meant to lead back to the "True Torah Jews" issue. Also, you seem to miss the reasons behind this AfD, nothing has been mentioned about anyone's POV or NPOV, so why do you bring that up? This AfD is because it does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, see also Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide that make it quite clear that disambiguation pages are for Wikipedia articles and not for external websites of a dubious sort. Thank you, IZAK 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It clearly now meets every requirement since it has a main page and many other links that a few are now deleted speedily and it will no doubt re-surface in the future as too many users think it should not be erased, this one article was already recreated by users over 5 times i know so i dont think in the long term it will be a non existing article. Yes the satmar users are not so much as the Zioinists but they are alive and are not going anywhere, while Zionists do indeed diminish they are busy having 12 kids and are multiplying and spreading their cause so it will eventually reach Notability standers by every singe estimate.--יודל 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm, what does having 12 babies have to do with this discussion? Maybe 12 babies is not enough come to think of it when the rest of the world population is now 6.7 Billion and it will be they who take over Wikipedia, don't you think? (They do so already in any case!) This is also not about Satmars vs. the world. There is no such competition going on here except in your head it seems because you always insist on bringing this up. Wikipedia has nothing against Satmars or anyone else as long as everyone keeps in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Those are the basics, and nothing else, not Satmar, not you not me. But that is not what is being discussed here. Until you made the recent edits [32] to Jews against zionism and thereby restored an article that had been previously deleted TWICE, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2005) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (2007). You thereby did not follow the correct procedure by submitting this to Wikipedia:Deletion review for recreating an article and topic that has been twice deleted. IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes you are right. It is not Satamr vs the World, it is indeed Satamr vs. the Zionists, as many times you will delete it, it will more times be created. and this was never ever created without posting the debate on the so called Jewish Wiki-Project, lets face it, this article has all the right sources and citations to establish its Notability, but as the users who delete always say, AH Satamr they are fringe POV. Sorry this isn't a reason to delete, and it wont stay deleted with this bias, but only time will prove me right, this discussion was already gone for now the other way.--יודל 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and write the articles quickly including a serious attempt by a neutral party at replacement of the previous deleted article with real sourcing if it exists. Stub articles would do, as long as it is clear there are sources. DGG (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did so but it was deleted speedily. [33]--יודל 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep the Satmar group should never had been deleted since it is real and alive with weekly citations in the Yiddish media. I am a user who reads Yiddish and can easily provide you with those much needed sources. Please keep in mind that this org is nothing more then a think thank to spread Satmar Rebbe's view on Zinism, all they do is take money from Satamr Hasidim in order to make radio and Newspaper ads and pay for a website and publish books and leaflets, they have 9 respected board members but their website is not like any other website since their rabbis are opposed to internet, so they do not list an address and telephone number, just the bare minimum. The Satmar community today is divided in 2 parts, this org is the only org that has the backing of both party's. I already work on a article with citations and sources to establish its notability.--יודל 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's indeed a "Satmar" group then it can easily be redirected and become part of the Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) article (but maybe most Satmar's would be too ashamed to be openly associated with such a group, just give them money and hope they stay away, as is often the case.) The group is not a "think tank" (maybe it's a "thing tank" as you often mix up the words "think" and "thing") and Hasidim do not subscribe to or ascribe any importance to "think tanks" or any such gimmicks. They are taught by their rebbeim, they don't need "think tanks" thanks. No doubt all sorts of people give money to all sorts of crazy causes but that does not mean that those causes should be worthy of articles in an encyclopedia. Orthodox Jews and Haredim give huge sums to better things (not "think") such as to poor and sick people, sums that would astound people, in the hundreds of millions, but noone is running to make noise about it on the Internet or to create all sorts of articles about that. Funny that the fanatical groups that support the Jew killers and antisemites want to get noticed online and in the media, isn't it? True Hasidim are usually to modest to brag, so to depict them here as being a media savvy bloodthirsty lot is an insult to them as Jews and to their humanity. So, to repeat, if something really belongs to the Satmar topic, make it part of the Satmar article, otherwise what you are doing is engaging in Wikipedia:No original research and violating WP:NPOV rules because that in turn violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#BLOG, and more, especially WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) and wasting your and everybody else's time. Thank you, IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Izak i need you to calm down first of all about your innuendo that this particular group has met with the Iranian leader is false, You actually took that out of your but. This group was opened and founded for the reason alone to take away the Satamr mission from Neturei karta and satmar has squarely condemned globally those Jews who met that Arab. Now that this is cleared up, let me tell you that they are indeed a respectfull Think thank about the teachings of their Rabbi, You are right once their Rabbi was alive there was no need to spread and further his mision, he was Holy and even the Zionist jews had the utmost respect for his word, now that he is dead, The satmar Hasidim have decided its time to act, and see ways how to spread this mision. Is it notable yes, and the article did have claims with proof to that effect. Is it fringe POV i dont care. If it is out there it has its place in wikipedia, and no user can sensor it because he does not like what they do.--יודל 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per my talk page comments above. There are no articles even linking to this page except a redirect from Jews against zionism (and that has nothing linking to it either). Unless someone quickly writes another article to disambiguate on this page, and it can exist without any external links (see MOS:DAB), in which case set up the disambiguation at Jews Against Zionism, but only if there are Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look back in the history and on its talk page and see that those who want to dleete have asked to block a user simply for qouting this site, so he was forced to change his link, and it does have an atrticle leading to neturei karta--יודל 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see many articles, Natrina Neturei karta and more that were already speedily erased while you were writing this, with utterly disregard for conflict of interest here[34].--יודל 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Natrina was created with extreme disregard for wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews and WP:CSD, focusing on G4. Neturei karta was not, and will not, be deleted, speedy or otherwise, as the group is sufficiently notable to warrant a wiki article. Please restrict yourself to facts and not suppositions, unjustified accusations, or misrepresentations of wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Avi 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see only one user going personnel here and everybody sees whats his name. But now that it was asked i will answer it: This was deleted by a user who has voted to delete in his words POV pushing while he himself goes ahead and deletes the article so his POV should win. This is a perfect example of a conflict of interest here. and its not the first time those sysop tools were used in such a way, this issue suffered already before of this while the article Haredim and Zionism was blocked for a week with unsourced slanderers line. So lets straitened out the FACT: The article Natrina was re-established as a stub as other users have requested here, and it was deleted here by a deleter vote!--יודל 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, please read WP:CSD section G4. The article in question was not significantly different from the one deleted, and as such was a classic speedy candidate. Your near-constant resorting to ad hominem attacks when you lack any other support for your arguments, such as wikipedia policy or facts, is becoming more and more of a hindrance. So is your penchant for changing headings (as you still do after nearly being severely sanctioned for it) as well as your propensity to push specific points of view. It is in your best interest to review the discussions that occurred on WP:ANI and see how you can continue to contribute gainfully without disrupting process or policy. -- Avi 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This Admin should not be an issue here, but I think asking to delete something while saying that your concern is POV while using some tools that other do not have to delete something else to win your vote against others, is not a personal attack, it is simply a way how to put an editing history in focus. This is a real conflict of interest here and i hope everybody can understand why, if not i am mistaken and i would apologize.--יודל 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am uncertain how you can view a clear-cut case of upholding a wikipedia policy as a "conflict-of-interest"? If anything, your editing history demonstrates a significant propensity towards a point-of-view and a disregard for wikipedia policies? -- Avi 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest means that even though policy says that the article must be erased or even though some user must be blocked, the Admin who had his conflict on the matter cannot do it because of conflict of interest.--יודל 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And being that this was a clear-cut case of a wikipedia violation, and being that I have no personal or professional relationship with any organization pro- or con- Zionism, there is no issue. Now please stop trying to create issues where there are none and restrict yourself to content and policy, and not people. -- Avi 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being that you have declared this issue a POV Pushing and being that u used some tools that others dont have to win this debate i ask other Admins to restore the artice in question since it is being rather drastically improved by me and it was addressed successfully all the issues raised in the initial deletion. It is still a stub and most users have declared it fine if effort is being put into it to establish notability which i will do. Everybody has his POV mine is clear and yours is also clear so lets have a chance to make our views reach some consensus and not use one stronger hand against the other to win the issue.--יודל 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The place to request that a deletion be overturned is WP:DRV. -- Avi 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks please dont make work harder then needed, you erased this article clearly agaisnt the rules and polices of an Admin, You were clearly invoved here and have already expressed your desire to delete it, be so kind and give it to me i will not make it into an article i will simply put it in my sandbox to work on it until its perfect. I know you have already said that you wont bock me becaouse you don't want to use your sysop tools in a way to win discussions, please do the same here and undo your actions if you are right why win it with tools that others don't have? let the system of consensus building play out its role. I don't beleave it should be put back as a stub now since you don't want it but i promise you i will work on it to perfect it i have already experience with fixing deleted articles trust me--יודל 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I suggest you carefully review wikipedia policy and guidelines. Making improper and unfounded accusations of impropriety is considered a personal attack, of which you have made a number on this page already. Those kinds of edits are not allowed on wikipedia, of which you have been informed a number of times already. -- Avi 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 5'th time i do not see where pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack, i see you have said this about me endless times but i am still waiting for third opinion here to see if i was wrong. so please do not repeat yourself against my actions, becaouse you and i aren't the issue here. 2 users, DGG and i have thought it proper to re-esteblish the articles as stubs, you have done what you have done against us, now lets wait for others to express their opinions here--יודל 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that one of the three isn't Notable but the purpose from this disambiguation wasn't for that alone we need here to make a page to list all subjects who use this header. And when including them we must first include everything that is Notable for the user, then another editor can come and take out all the subjects he deems not notable but to delete the whole page because one link isn't the way.--יודל 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes right now it isnt becouse an Admin used his tolls to make it like this. I asked to re-edit it, i myself wont do this since i do not want to disrupt wikipedia. But the chronicle of events must be clear. now it is rightfully destined for deletion. i guess th system works somehow, only if the Admins play by the same rules as a the other normal users--יודל 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that those articles u r referring to were indeed wikipedia established articles, it was deleted only because of more votes to delete, but in no way does it reflect the real wikipedia process. It will be re-created in no time, and it will be again deleted by those Zionist wikiProject users who evidently have the more votes here, this happened until now every month this was re-created a new because it is notable and real subjects to the minority of people in the world, we should not make wikipedia into a demcartecy of majourety rules, we are a consensus based project, the anti Zionist Jews are indeed a fringe group, but we cannot therefore delete them as a subject, I know i am one here against twenty but i feel i am right.--יודל 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I tend to agree with RolandR on this as far as the purpose of this disambig page being to help alleviate some confusion and ambiguity between a few groups (including an anonymous website) lumped under the same name. I'll have to think more on this before I can sway one way or the other. --MPerel 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nowhere in Wikipedia:Disambiguation is it stated that disambiguation pages cannot disambiguate titles that don't have articles; the only requirement is that potential for confusion exists when typing the name into Wikipedia. At least one of these entries is clearly notable; a book which has been reviewed in International Journal of Middle East Studies and The Observer among others. At the same time, the websites and advocacy groups are probably much better known than the book, so the potential for confusion exists. Jewish anti-Zionism is maybe a 4 or 5% viewpoint within Judaism, and was a >50% view prior to 1945. In other words, it is not a fringe viewpoint, and its various organizations and outgrowths can be documented on Wikipedia. Policy is being ignored here in favor of unwarranted assumptions (and uncivil attacks on those who vote to apply policy). <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As Eleland notes, disambig pages don't always link to articles, although admittedly external links seem odd to me. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2nd nomination), I propose replacing that article with one about the British group Jews Against Zionism discussed above by RolandR, which would alleviate some concern about this page not linking to articles. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - if we delete JAZ or it's disambiguation then it will appear that Wikipedia prefers hate-sites to sources preaching tolerance between religions - since Jew Watch is one individual's web-site (perhaps specialising in copyvio?), yet it has a substantial article. There are a number of groups actually using the JAZ title (I think I counted 4), and there is at least one other significant group using a closely related title (JewsNotZionists.org which should probably be linked from the same page). At the present rate, at least two of these 5 groups will have articles, with likely more to follow. As to notability (as I said on the AfD for JAZ.com), I've never Googled for Haredim let along Haredim and Zionism, but I've Googled many times for "Jews Against Zionism" (and the older? "Jews Not Zionists" over the last 10 years). These people have a major web-footprint, surfers such as me are almost certainly searching for them constantly. They would be notable even if they were "only a web-site", and I'm pretty sure they're not. (More on this subject, including membership figures at my entry here. PRtalk 12:40, 11 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. WjBscribe 03:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Destroying America

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

    This film fails WP:NF. The only secondary source given is a review on a minor web magazine, while the guideline calls e.g. for "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". PROD was contested with comment: "passes other markers of notability, several notable stars / celebrities appear in the movie". I actually don't see for which notable person this film was a major part of their career; but if so, a merger could be considered. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Borderline (naturally enough, considering who sent it :)
    Pros:
    1 on imdb (and w/ a rating!)
    2 external review (switch magazine) that satisfies wp:rs & v
    (3 notable skaters starring)
    Cons
    1 filtered googling yields precious little hits [35]
    2 Opinions seem generally unanimous that "it stinks", maybe this can be interpreted as "it is not notable"?
    ? #39,165 on amazon dvd sales. I can't say what that means, beware of the long tail before jumping to conclusions.

    --Victor falk 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree on imdb. It might be below standards for a film review, but Switch is I believe a major skateboard magazine, which are the criterion I think we should apply here. The question here is "did it make a notable impact in the skateboarding community" (it is obviously non-notable to the general public)? Considering I got only 422 ghits, most of them torrent or sales sites, it seems that that community dare speak of this film only on non-googable forums, or not at all... draw your own conclusions.--Victor falk 09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per deprod - Several notable people star / appear in the movie (Erik Estrada, Tony Hawk et al). Not the greatest cinematic work ever commited to celluloid, but not insignificant either. Agree that lack of sources is an issue. Deiz talk 11:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Amazon ranking #39,165: "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought..."
    • Real movies:
    Lords of Dogtown #5,387
    Dogtown and Z-Boys #8,056
    Grind (2003 film) #5,525
    Thrashin' #15,869
    • Skate videos:
    DC Video #8,471
    Skateboarding Mayhem #70,432
    ESPN & 900 Presents - Tony Hawks Gigantic Skateboard Park Tour Summer 2002 #44,580
    Tony Hawk's Boom Boom Huck Jam North American Tour (2002) #75,407
    Tony Hawk's Secret Skatepark Tour (2004) #11,999
    Tony Hawk's Gigantic Skatepark Tour 2001 #55,304
    Almost Round Three (2004) #54,771

    Amazon editorial review: This attempt to elevate a skateboard video to an action-adventure film nearly makes MTV's Jackass look like Masterpiece Theater...

    --Victor falk 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. notability not inherited from celebrity appearances. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Plenty of reliable source material for the article: (1) Worcester Telegram & Gazette. January 19, 2001. Cable access spat spurs punishment / Teenagers pushing of limits produces televised pranks in Grafton. (2) Seattle Post-Intelligencer. (February 19, 2001) Digital film festival starts here. Page E1. (3) Seattle Times. (February 22, 2001) Weekend jammed with movie specials. Page E3. (4) Daily Star (United Kingdom). (March 16, 2003) American Beauties. Uncovered. The stars and stripes stunners. Pg. 39. -- Jreferee t/c 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! How could I forget to check the news archives?--victor falk 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Source #1 is about an unrelated public access TV show in Grafton. #2 only includes the line "The lineup includes "Destroying America," a skateboard film starring Eric Estrada." #3 only says "It's made up entirely of digitally created movies, including the skateboard film Destroying America." #4 does not appear to mention the film at all, and talks instead about "gorgeous babes ... born in the USA." In short, this is garbage, and makes me even more convinced the article should be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree the quoted sources are not sufficient to establish notability, although I believe it is entirely possible to convey this without using words such as "garbage". Deiz talk 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, I'm sorry. I was just frustrated by this source dump because a casual glance would have shown no substantive treatment and completely irrelevant material. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Comparing the sources found so far with the list of requirements in Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_Principles, I don't think the film measures up. For example, full-length reviews by at least two nationally known critics? Though Jreferee's findings are useful, we don't know what those people actually said, or whether any of those articles gave more than a passing mention to this film. The filtered Google search offered above by Victor Falk gets about 450 hits, not enough to suggest that better sources are just around the corner. EdJohnston 01:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. What we've got here is ... failure ... to significate. Not notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:40, 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. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Harnar

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

    This article is heavily promotional in tone, fails to cite any independent sources, and is linked to very few other artilces. Google shows just under 1,000 hits, among which I did not spot anything that would be useful as a source. Even though his cabaret career "blossomed" in 1983, and he has an "unusually smooth baritone voice" (lucky chap) I could not find any non-trivial independent sources from which to rewrite the article. Cruftbane 07:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Www.ultimate-anonymity.com

    edit
    Www.ultimate-anonymity.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    this article is blatant advt for a company. the afd tag has been removed due to Bad faith Mugunth 06:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    The result was Speedy Delete. Page was re-created after previous nom (above), hence the double nomination. Page already deleted by: User:NawlinWiki. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Www.ultimate-anonymity.com

    edit
    Www.ultimate-anonymity.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article seems to be of a non-notable company. The speedy deletion tag has been contested so I've just decided to nominate it for AFD. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Terrel

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

    Non-notable fighter, unreferenced Thesaddestday 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. John254 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Stein

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

    A speedy deletion via AFD in July; a user asked for the deletion to be overturned. I believe an argument for keeping the page is forthcoming; I have no opinion. Ral315 » 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm currently editing the article to better express Stein's accomplishments/notability, and to cite sources. When done, I'll drop another note here. I hope it's all right to ask that the discussion wait a bit (an hour or two) for those changes to be done. --Karl Fogel 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I've had a go at fleshing out the article with some more information and references. Comments/improvements welcome. Note that one of the references is a book I wrote -- I didn't do that out of egotism, it's just that it's a published source and is an appropriate reference for a factual statement in the article. I'm not sure what the etiquette is around citations like that. I'm happy to be educated, though; just let me know what the usual procedure is. Thanks. --Karl Fogel 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was reply hazy, try again. Please re-list seperately where it may be appropriate to do so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CrossRoads Middle School

    edit
    CrossRoads Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Ballentine Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    H. E. Corley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Harbison West Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Oak Pointe Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    River Springs Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    WP:OUTCOMES says that while high schools are kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've deleted a few blue ribbon winners, as those seem to be notable. But the others (including CrossRoads m.s.) don't assert notability. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ALL-per WP:OUTCOMES only high schools are kept TonyBallioni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete almost all Except for Nursery Rd and Dutch Fork. Those two seem to have won some semi-notable award from the Dept of Educ, which may make them notable (although I'm not familiar enough with the blue ribbon award to know if it's rare enough that winning it confers some notability). If it isn't that important, then delete all. Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep All Above and beyond the nominator's failure to review and improve the articles in clear violation of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy is the lumping together of articles for which many make clear and unmistakable claims of notability as they existed at the time this laundry list AfD was created. In the few minutes since I saw the AfD, several of the articles have had multiple reliable and verifiable sources added to provide the clearest possible demonstration of satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. WP:OUTCOMES does NOT say that all elementary and middle school articles are deleted, and the use of this policy to justify deletion, without describing any violation of Wikipedia policy by these articles, is problematic in and of itself. Alansohn 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So after reading Blue_Ribbon_Schools_Program, it seems 4% of the schools in the country wins the award. I personally don't think that establishes notability, but I imagine that's a personal opinion. (And unless I missed something, that's the only claim these schools have to notability). However, I do want to second Alansohn's remarks about WP:OUTCOMES being used as a reason to delete. It's fine to use OUTCOMES when trying to decide whether to AfD something (so long as it isn't the sole/primary reason for nomination), but it is not a good reason to delete. Instead, we should cite the underlying reason(s) why this class of articles (and this article in specific) should be deleted. --Bfigura (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh 173.217.255.207 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. To be frank, I've never read or heard of WP:OUTCOMES until today, but lumping together a number of Blue Ribbon recipients with other schools is no way to achieve a consensus. Worse case scenario, they should be merged to their parent school district or locality! Silensor 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all and reference better WP:OUTCOMES isn't close to consensus, each article must be on its own merits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can someone explain to me what exactly is encyclopedic about listing every school in the country? It just seems like wikipedia is not the place for some of this info. Even if the schools have won awards is that a reason to have them here. Not arguing with anyone just honestly asking. I'm kind of caught between the opinion that we include way to many things in wikipedia or that we should just list everything. I mean if we are going to get rid of bands and artist because they are unsigned local acts with no major national press coverage, why should every school be listed? Ridernyc 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all- ruling schools of this size automatically notable. Period.JJJ999 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • speedy keep and relist What OUTCOMES says is that we usually delete such articles, unless they have individual merit. so lets consider the individual merit. OUTCOMES is in any event just a summary of what usually happens here, and I note that it has almost always been considered that Blue Ribbon schools are sufficiently distinctive for their quality to be considered important. I personally have my doubts, but checking back it shows the consensus has been that this is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with DGG. Speedy keep and relist individually. shoy 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I could live with that. Should we close this one and reopen them individually, or should we just put a relist template, rm and list the elementary schools individually? J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I is valliant--Victor falk 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by that? i said 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. PeaceNT 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wires On Fire

    edit
    Wires On Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There does seem to be press on this group but much of the early Ghits seem to be from the same press release. I'm having trouble satisfying WP:RS and WP:V in my searches. I'm willing to admit to a mistake on this nom if others can find more info. Pigman 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC) ALSO: There seems to be considerable conflict of interest since the sole editor of the article is named after the manager and brother of a band member. Just sayin'... Pigman 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No worries; there's no formal procedure that I know of, just make the closing admin aware that you are withdrawing the nomination, and as long as there are no delete votes, the Afd merits a speedy keep. Skomorokh incite 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Hoax, Speedied. humblefool® 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forest Lost

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

    "Best-seller" that apparently doesn't exist, zero Google hits but notability was asserted. Also apparently written ten years in the future. Accounting4Taste 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as hoax. DS 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zinnamon church massacre

    edit

    The article has no references or sources, there is no mention of the incident on the Internet - except for Wikipedia and it's mirrors and the original author has made no other edits except for the creation of this article. This, in addition to the comment left on the talk page, by the party who had originally written to OTRS - lead me to believe the article is a hoax. Versageek 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Panocracy

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

    This article appears to violate WP:OR. It has no relaiable references. It returns zero hits on google scholar, which is suggestive, even if not a complete guide. User:John Talbot, who started the article, also seems to be the main person promoting the idea. For example, he wrote: "It is for this reason that I proposed some years ago the use of the word panocracy. Pan meaning everyone so panocracy is rule by everyone" on [42] on 2006-06-20 12:17, and seems to be the main author of the site promoting this idea [43]. Of course, I could be missing something, so I hope someoen with better knowledge of this field will examine this article. Anarchia 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comrade Agamennon2, report for thoughtcrime. In Pancracy, everybody rules YOU!!--Victor falk 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why 'merge' something that violates WP:OR? Anarchia 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single word of it is not OR, and merging parts of it would improve panarchy.--Victor falk 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, from memory, one reference in the article. Surely it would be better to get information from a reliable source to include in panarchy, and then include the reference? Anarchia 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete I don't think panocracy has any really reliable references except those that look like original research, possibly by the wikipedia editors?? Something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted. It should NOT be referred to in either panarchy or panarchism for that reason.Carol Moore 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
    • Comment Evidently what a few call "pantocracy" and "panocracy" is widely known as panarchy (39 resp 46 vs 203000 ghits). Nevertheless, they contain some information that could be included in "panarchy", hence a merger being more appropriate than a deletion. Don't flush the baby with the bath water.--Victor falk 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Comment. As I researched further down the search engines, I realized that pantocracy and panocracy have been described by a variety of people. The problem is NO ONE bothers to discuss those sources or link to them in either article. Therefore it's just someone's philosophy with a lot of wiki links. If someone wants to keep those articles in they should beef them up with real info, and not just opinions, ASAP.

    Carol Moore 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

    • I don't have a problem with merging any sourced and accurate info. There is little credible in one article and none in the other. There IS such sourced info on pantocracy and panocracy on the web that could be added, if it is proved it is relevant. But you can't merge someone's original unsourced research and opinion on how all these things relate to each other. That's what it means when the articles are being deleted for violating WP:OR.
    Carol Moore 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
    • Keep until a suitable place to merge is found. The contents of the article describe a real phenomenon, a way of distributing power that is showing itself in different settings, and may possibly become a major trend. However, the word panocracy seems to be invented by John Talbut, and does not have widespread use. Thus, it is really the title that is the problem. We should look for somewhere else to put the contents; but as that is difficult to find, I say keep it as is for the time being. Merging with Panarchy is not a solution: that is something quite different. Rune Kock 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, wouldn't it make more sense to delete this unless WP:V is satisfied, which is not the case for material in this article derived from John Talbot's OR web pages? Anarchia 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's a bad precedent to allow essentially all opinion articles to survive. People who want to keep the article should do the research and re-write it with sources! Unsourced opinion articles shouldn't be merged into sourced articles, thereby bringing down their quality. When does this get decided, anyway??
    Carol Moore 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
    • Delete I see no evidence whatever for general use of the term, or any importance. I am sometimes flexible about what I think can be considered not altogether OR, but this is unmistakable total OR, a purely personal unsourced essay on the subject. The article is more substantial than the previous version, which is why I said above it wasn' t a speedy for G4, but it still does not say anything encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:58, 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. --Coredesat 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Japanese names

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

    Deltion nomination Too broad to be useful, not only unreferenced but likely unreferencable, wikipedia is not a directory, no criteria for inclusion beyond "Japanese". Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe beat me to it, I was going to suggest making a fresh subsection of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan Chris 05:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorize. This type of list would function much better as a category. Useight 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleteper nom, and all above, and reason mentioned in the English names debate.Ridernyc 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, although I would love to see the surnames that were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames come back. This list of given names is not of the same standard, though. Neier 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It is practically (almost) impossible to list all of Japanese names. I can image there might be a list of , say, Japanese names of unusual readings, but not this one. -- Taku 09:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is largely a list of Japanese personal names. As such, it's a re-creation of something already deleted, mostly because it can't be completed. To the extent that it isn't merely a list of Japanese personal names, it's a superset of such a list and therefore even more eligible for deletion. As pointed out above, a large percentage of the blue links are misleading. Don't subject Wiktionary to this junk: Wiktionary already suffers from, inter alia, a page that implies that the only way to write Akio is 明夫 and another that implies that names such as しにちろ ("Shinichiro") are used. -- Hoary 10:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The indiscriminate list of blue links at its very worst. This one includes first names, surnames, boy's names, girl's names... and its all in one big list! There's an occasional "F" or "P" written alongside. I guess it's here so that if you read that "Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan returned to Tokyo" you can see if Yasuo or Fukuda might be a "Japanese name". Mandsford 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, my vote seems like overkill, but I'll cast it anyway. Delete. Unlike the English names article, this one also suffers from tons of anime names, which are not always regular everyday Japanese names. You'd probably spend quite some time trying to dig up a real life flesh-and-blood "Himeko", for instance. Also, there's names for folklore beings and gods (Raiden, Amaterasu) and even a fictional band of mercenaries (!) (Bankotsu). How all this fits in with the concept of "Japanese names" is beyond me. Even if the list were maintained up to a standard, and only actual names were listed, I cannot imagine of what possible use it could be. TomorrowTime 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No no no, no. No, no no. Mandsford 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, that's a real name alright. Matter of fact, that's the name of the friendly old guy with the oden stand just down the road from where I used to live in Japan. TomorrowTime 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Consensus is that Pixelism as an art movement topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pixelism Art Movement

    edit
    Pixelism Art Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fun one here. This claims to be an art movement. At first I thought this was an elaborate hoax, but it isn't, as at least one genuine artist does seem to call one of his works a "pixelism" [45]. Other artists may produce work in this style [46], but do not call it pixelism that i can tell. The article gives 3 references, which actually do seem to exist [47] but again do not mention the term "pixelism" as far as I can tell. Then, I can't find anything else confirming this is a genuine art movement... [48] [49]. So until there are sources confirming the claims of this article, I think needs to be deleted for failing WP:V and possibly WP:NOR. --W.marsh 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this related to Stuckism? I can't find that reference in the article. Freshacconci | Talk 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was more of a flippant comment than anything, alluding to the stuckists "Artists who don't paint aren't artists", and the mere fact that the "Pixelism Art Movement" is paint based, whereas the Pixel art make art on the computer. The words "stuckist-approved paint" could be replaced with "honest-to-snot paint", or "actual wet and smelly paint" etc. Pete.Hurd 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. Freshacconci | Talk 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete (patent nonsense). CitiCat ♫ 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Carbon administrators

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

    I don't even know what this would fail! The first half talks about wikipedia administrators, then goes on to discuss the element Carbon. They aren't even remotely linked. ARendedWinter 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus - Being verifiable, indiscriminate, and notable are not issues for this list, because the content is verifiable, follows a clear theme, and can be sourced. Consensus regarding these issues is clear. However, just because the fact that Arby's and the other restaurants on the list are fast food restaurants and that fact can be sourced and verified does not address the real issues of this particlar list. The issue that needs to be the focus of any future AfD discussion is list vs. category and whether this list meets any of the three main list purposes. There was some discussion on these, but not enough to produce a clear consensus, in part because of the distraction of whether the list was verifiable, indiscriminate, or notable. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fast food restaurants

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

    This page is very long and seems to be list of every single fast food restraunt known notable or not. The page is basicly a collection of Internal and External Links mixed in and violates these policys and Guidlines: WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK,WP:LINKS, and possibly WP:DIRECTORY Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The list is superior to the categories because much of it contains redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mayhap the folks who care can userfy the list, and create real articles for the redlinks. SolidPlaid 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete o.O That's a very indiscriminate list. Maybe convert it into a category, with inclusion criteria (e.g. there must be a legitimate wiki article on it). i said 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Another misuse of the word indiscriminate. I don't see how this article fits any of the mentioned policies. How WP:SOAP applies, I can't fathom. WP:LINKS applies to external links, not wikilinks. CitiCat ♫ 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I would agree there shouldn't be these external links in the article, and they should probably be removed. CitiCat ♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because fast food restaurants is a commonly used grouping. A list of restaurants that have eight letter names, or that have green signs, would be an indiscriminate list. CitiCat ♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, those would be more discriminate lists than "fast food restaurants". Not be semantic, but indiscriminate means lacking in finite distinctions, which, other than "it's a fast food restaurant by someone's standards", this article lacks. i said 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then list them this way: if the Wikipedia article can make the judgment on whether it is a fast food restaurant then it should be in the list. Tim Q. Wells 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to use Wiktionary, indiscriminate means "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless", which I would take to mean you're just making up lists without any thought to whether there is a logical grouping of the list entries. But this is exactly why I've tried to get that language in WP:NOT changed, because it just causes arguments. "Fast food restaurants" (note the plural) returns 1,700,000 ghits, it's a very commonly used category, including tons of articles in periodicals, and directories. And of course we have Category:Fast-food restaurants which would have to be deleted as well. As to a definition, I think it would be generally defined as an establishment where the food is pre-prepared [50] and counter served. CitiCat ♫ 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So then indiscriminate, by your reasoning, means only a list of items that have nothing in common? Yes, these things, as well as others, have things in common. That does not made it discriminate. If you use "commonly grouped category" that means pretty much anything that has a collective name. For instance, we could say "made in China". According to your definition, that is not indiscriminate, as there is a collective term that they fall under(2.64m ghits). And finally, that definition is flawed, since not every "fast food" restaurant has pre-made food; in addition, wouldn't the capability of special orders disqualify a restaurant under the definition? i said 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are a plethora of categories much more adequate for this: Fast-food chains of the United States | Fast-food chains of Canada | Fast-food franchises | Fast-food burger restaurants | Multinational food companies |, etc, etc. --Victor falk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are not more suited because they cannot contain redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a user or project page with red links is suitable--Victor falk 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just wrong. It is better covered by the list because categories cannont contain redlinks, as I said above. Tim Q. Wells 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question to Tim, Hwo in the world would I know the notability of the Red Linked restraunts? Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 03:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Search to find evidence of existence and notability. If nothing turns up, it's not notable (or a hoax) and should be removed. If you get various sources, then create the article. Hmm, sounds familiar... Ideally, all lists should contain sources and inline citations to evidence each entry's merit of inclusion, however this is not usually the case (as with thousands of other noteworthy articles). - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorize by country, and remove redlinked chains. Not indiscriminate, but perhaps this would be better suited as a category. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and categorize in Category:Fast-food restaurants by nationality. This is one of those cases where a category is better than a list, precisely because it prevents dozens of non notable fast food restaurants from being added, as has happened here. I checked several of the redlinked restaurants and the only Ghits they had were this article, so this list isn't being maintained (those non notable restaurants were added months ago), and will continue to be a list that any passing editor adds their local buger bar to. Crazysuit 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep but then divide and improve. Indiscriminate can mean several things, and a list of literally all fast food restaurants would be indiscriminate. This isn't--its mainly notable ones that have WP entries (the usual criterion for notability on a list). a list of selected fffr's selected by a rational criterion like notabiity is the opposite of indiscriminate. That said, it's not a good article and should be divided and reconstructed. List of defunct fast food chains, which is one section, would make a good list article on its own. Possibly some of the others would be better as categories unless some information can be given. For areas where we seem to have no information but the name, perhaps articles should be written first. Surely this can be done for Russia, to give one example where theya re all red links. DGG (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per above. This is a useful navigational tool for (a) going by blue link to Wikipedia articles about a particular fast-food restaurant chain (b) determining, at a glance, which chains are based where and (c) seeing, by r e d link which chains exist, but about which there is no article. Fast food restaurants are big business the world over, clogging mankind's arteries regardless of nationality. Mandsford 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. More proof that WP:IINFO boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The definition of what constitutes a fast food restaurant is reasonably clear and not "indiscriminate". Referenced criteria for inclusion should appear in the articles in chief for each chain. Lists serve valuable navigation purposes and call attention to gaps in coverage that categories cannot, since only articles that exist can be categorized. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable subject, proper for a list. But please put some navigational structure in there! 2 columns and/or an index; we have templates for that. Wikidemo 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Better as a category. Colonel Warden 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The subject is notable. Using WP:ILIKEIT as an argument is not sufficient reason to keep or delete this. Ihcoyc has made the point that lists can contain redlinks, categories cannot, which is very true. Also, it should probably be kept provided that there are some ground rules as to what can be in the list, and what can't. That way it will make it a lot easier to use for the reader. --Solumeiras talk 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Don't delete an article or a page because it's not good enough; make it better by editing it and fixing the problems instead. Fast food restaurants is clearly notable enough to warrant a list. This deletion nomination is a bad idea. Rray 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, because the navigational purpose would be better served by a category and the list is too big to be maintainable. It took over a minute to load in my browser just now. Cruftbane 21:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable subject, but I agree with what others say, needs better navigation Brooklynl 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as has no sources or content to demonstrate notability. I agree that navigation issues can only be resolved through categorization. --Gavin Collins 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Legitimate list, notable, clear criteria for inclusion. Does not violate any of the policies given in the nomination. --Kudret abiTalk 08:12, 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 redirect to Farscape. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Farscape One

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

    A fictional spaceship. Prod tags removed. No sources, no real world notability. To my mind, it is not very interesting even within the show. Previous debates have revealed a hard core of Farscape editors, who argue furiously for the retention of Farscape articles but never actually add citations to back up their claims. SolidPlaid 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the idea of deleting first, then redirecting. Of course I would just redirect, if that didn't leave the history for all time. SolidPlaid 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here since, for example, you had no problem redirecting Warwick Elementary School without it first being deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I bring elementary schools to AfD people complain that I should just redirect. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This should tell you something. PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. If I went and began redirecting precious Farscape articles, people would complain that they were notable, if only I did some real research, or tell me I had redirected them to the wrong place. SolidPlaid 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: What do you have against retaining the edit history? What difference does it make to you? PC78 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article survives if its history survives. I believe that fewer non-notable articles would be created if people feared the articles would vanish forever once deleted. Why do you want the history to survive? The only possible explanation is that you want some trace of it to survive. SolidPlaid 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit history should be retained for future reference, and the posibility remains that a viable article may be created at some point in the future. It wouldn't be causing any harm and shouldn't be deleted without good reason, and I don't see you giving one. I don't like it doesn't count. PC78 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You want the the article to remain somewhere for the future, which demonstrates my point. The harm is that fans can write an article on anything, no matter how non-notable, and hope that it will exist forever in history limbo even after deletion. I want to extinguish that hope to preclude the future creation of articles on non-notable topics. Do you understand? Wikipedia is not a vehicle to immortality. SolidPlaid 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You almost seem to be ranting, and you still haven't addressed my point. Why does this particular edit history need to be deleted? PC78 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another interpretation is that you don't get what I am saying. I believe that I have made my point. This particular edit history needs to be deleted because it is the one being debated right now. SolidPlaid 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes heavy-handed approaches are appropriate. SolidPlaid 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Yes, but why would they be in this particular case? I don't see a real benefit... --Kizor 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and then Redirect to Farscape. As a standalone stub article it borders into 'cruft with little to no notability outside of the Farscape universe. The thing could perhaps be compared to various USAF, NASA, RFSA, or ESA spaceship designs; but without reliable sourcing that effort would eventually collapse into the OR vacuum. There is some material to merge in an orderly fashion into the parent article though. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the article content has no sources to verify its authenticity or demonstrate notablability. Removing a prod template and not following through with the redirect has left this issue unresolved. Advice to PC78: be assertive in your edits, be bold, and follow through with your stated intentions. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, Delete, Redirect - all of them, in that order. I find SolidPlaid's comments point-on. There is something to the view that if a non-notable article is merely redirected it will be resurrected somewhere down the road without the notability concern being addressed. --Jack Merridew 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Redirect Per other users' comments on this page. Rray 20:05, 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 and redirect to Yorktown Heights, New York. --Coredesat 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mildred E. Strang Middle School

    edit
    Mildred E. Strang Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, also delete per WP:OUTCOMES. şœśэїŝәқιￆṱᾅἻқￂ 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NewPark Mall

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

    Do individual malls that are not otherwise notable meet WP:N? I wasn't aware that they did. Thoughts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Plenty of reliable sources to show the mall is notable: [51], [52],[53],[54], [55], [56], [57],

    [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Tim Q. Wells 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do a bunch of maps and tourist info sites prove notabilty. I can pick any random thing in any city and find it listed on map sites. It's mall, is the largest, is it the best, is there anything unique about, no it's a mall.Ridernyc 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait wait, I take back what I said I missed the article that explains that they have Santa Claus there at Christmas time. Ridernyc 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, they are fairly bad links except maybe [63], [64], and [65] but that probably shouldn't establish notability. And, of course, that Santa Claus link was over-the-top. I remember seeing it but not actually posting it. Tim Q. Wells 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Tim, but with articles like this, it's not simply about verifiability, it's about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Now this article is not in any specifically stated violation of that, but I believe it's in violation, generally speaking, of the spirit of the policy. This may be arguable, which is fine, but I haven't heard one good reason why we should keep the article. (I listen to logic over policies) Oh, and be nice, Ridernyc :) Rocket000 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just adding a bit of sarcasm to point out that the exact same mall exists in every city. In fact where I live in Orlando I have about 15 malls like this. Also the 3 articles still being held up to prove notability still fall short in my eyes. First one is basically a directory listing. Other 2 are press releases about a theater being built. My main point is this, why is this mall any different then the 1000's of other malls in the country. A simple news story about the new Sears will not show thatRidernyc 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. :) I wasn't arguing with you. I voted "delete" too. Rocket000 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - and if there were sources establishing this mall as a touchstone, then there might be a claim to notability. But so far, the sources around don't seem to really suggest that. (Unless you're proposing that all malls should be speedy kept -- in that case I would suggest that you'd be going against consensus.) Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    where? Ridernyc 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above ffm 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- Notability is derived from Economic Impact to the local community. And I do agree with User:Rocket000, it seems as though there is some WP:Pointy nominations going on with all the Shopping Centres lately. My argument is the same in ALL these cases. A shopping Centre provides a staggering economic impact in initial construction, overall ownership, store ownerships, employment(onsite and offsite), "state" taxes, hydro, the list is long. The impact is long term, during contruction, lifecycle, demise, and historicly. WP:Corp allows for an organizations Economic Impact to be the cause of notability. How do Shopping Centres not qualify under this guideline? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain how a Shopping Mall is not an organization. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate mindless wp:policyciting, but since you up wp:corp in sunset mall, let's do it: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies." Emphasis added. --Victor falk 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cites have, and will continue to be, provided as they are found. Please, on either conversation, explain your reasoning for why a Shopping Centre is not an organization, and thus entitled to use that guideline. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A mall is an organisation, I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. I suggest we quit this discussion about malls in general, as to spend the time searching for sources establishing the notability of newpark and sunset mall instead. That should be of concern to you as none have been provided that meet standards for inclusion so far--Victor falk 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete.. No notability. CitiCat ♫ 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adzke

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

    Alleged internet phenomenon. Unreferenced. No links! No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    D'ni items

    edit
    D'ni items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article has no real-world significance. Belongs in a game guide, not an encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Whether it may become notable in the future is irrelevant to now, and keep/merge arguments seem to emphasize "possible" future notability for the school or one of its teachers (which wouldn't make the whole school meet WP:N. It can be recreated if it ever does. --Coredesat 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sierra Vista Middle School

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

    Non-notable, delete per WP:OUTCOMES. şœśэїŝәқιￆṱᾅἻқￂ 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually that's incorrect, you need to go to the sub-sub categories, it gets pretty dispersed. You can see it better by using the Special:CategoryTree. For example, Category:Middle schools in the United States leads to Category:Middle schools in California which has over 200 entries. I don't know how if there is some wiki-way to quickly sum up the total of entries in a category and all it's sub-categories, but it would be helpful. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools seems to have no such distinction for preferring High schools but deleting elementary and middle schools. Arthurrh 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: NN school. Again, as far as OUTCOMES, that should bear on whether or not to AfD an article. OUTCOMES is just basically a results list of previous AfD's. - Rjd0060 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to display my ignorance on this, but I've just recently wandered into the schools area of wikipedia because of searching for vandals. I can't seem to tell what the notability criteria is for schools. What's discussed above certainly doesn't agree with the schools wikiproject. Either a lot of articles are being kept that should be deleted, or the reverse is happening. Arthurrh 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI a sum of all entries underneath the "Middle schools" category is 1670. (see list of Middle schools categories) This is somewhat inflated as I believe it also includes the sub-category names, but it is close. Obviously Middle schools are not an automatic deletion. Arthurrh 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The notability guideline is applicable to schools; some people just don't feel like listening. This one is not notable. See my comment here about OUTCOMES. i said 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: If anything, this school should be kept for it's outstanding music program. In the Southern California Honor Orchestra, both the concertmaster positions for String and Full orchestra are held by Sierra Vista students, and the Southern California Honor Orchestra includes these counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. I think that's enough to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSMax8956 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Middle schools are usually deleted, but high schools are kept. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I keep seeing this "Middle schools are usually deleted" but the fact that there are over 1500 of them seems to contradict this. Arthurrh 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm going with a weak delete here - and the weak part is admittedlly because I'm from Orange County myself, so please forgive my bias. =^_^= I'm not entirely sure that inclusion in an orchestra for a school constitutes any sort of notability. Can we find something of articles to exhibit notabilty in the Orange County Register or something? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I want to concur with what's been said above: WP:OUTCOMES shouldn't be used as an argument in deletion discussions. It's just horribly circular logic. It's better used to decide whether or not to AfD something. (After it, it essentially reduces to: we should delete this because we usually delete this). Instead of that logic, it'd probably be better to cite the root policy that supports deletion (in this case WP:N, since I don't think the music thing is enough -- unless there are multiple WP:RS backing it up) Bfigura (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Irvine Unified School District. Since everyone is so happy to point to WP:OUTCOMES (which I've never heard of) as their rationale, I'll be sure to add a line about WP:REDIRECT to it later this week. Silensor 05:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge for now into the article for the district as a section--it will perhaps become notable in the future. OUTCOMES is just a summary of what usually happens here, and what usually happens here is that middle schools get redirected or merged, unless there is something exceptional. There is no class of anything that is automatically always non-notable. a well established middle school with academic or athletic prizes can well be notable. A prize winning orchestra is notability ,an orchestra by itself is not. Try again in a year or two. DGG (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Science teacher Kathy Marvin was selected to go on a parabolic zero-gravity flight, and will be personally featured in a PBS documentary about it. Apparently, SV has also gotten some of the highest test scores in the state, I'll add that once I can find some proof.PSMax8956 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Bravo ex rel. Ramirez v. Hsu) regarding privilege to search students, but the case isn't cited by any others. – Zedla 06:46, 12 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 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pasquerilla Spiritual Center

    edit
    AfDs for this article:

    Pasquerilla Spiritual Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) StateCollege 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was already speedily deleted by User:NawlinWiki per WP:CSD#G12. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherry Blossom (book)

    edit
    Cherry Blossom (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No claim of notability. Nowhere near meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). Was told it can't be speedied, so it's here Drdisque 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article deleted per CSD#g12. This should be closed. -Rjd0060 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayesha Mohan

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

    Non Notable actress. Has only acted in 2 movies in which she played some small roles. See IMDB for her details. WriterListener 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was merge the appropriate content to List of Nintendo 64 games. Sandstein 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games

    edit

    Despite Floppydog66's reasons given on the article's talk page, I fail to see how a seperate list from List of Nintendo 64 games is useful even to otaku such as myself. Such specialized interest is served better at the Japanese Wiki.SeizureDog 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete We already have a list of N64 games. I do not see the point to have only a list of Japanese games. Carlosguitar 08:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect the Japaneses title, seems to be a better option. Carlosguitar 11:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with List of Nintendo 64 games. A subsection listing games only released in Japan would work much better than a separate list. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find Wild Choppers on it. :) It's not a complete list. Give that game to someone and have them look for it on the List Of. ;) (Floppydog66 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • Chopper Attack is on the list though. It is a complete list of games, not titles. Alternate Japanese titles are not included as they would clutter up the list and aren't useful to the average English user.--SeizureDog 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wild Choppers is a game for the Nintendo 64 look it up online, despite it being re-released under another name for another type of Nintendo it has that name and you just wish to ignore that fact, and the fact that other publishers, published these games besides the U.S. versions. The first publisher should be listed then, and that would be the Japanese version and it doesn't have a reference to where or how the titles where translated. The Category N64 Game has a more complete listing of the games. As I mentioned when I first tried to add them to the List of Nintendo, those names need to be listed also or its not listing all the games and all those people who ask for a merge are asking for the same thing I did when I first brought them to the List of Nintendo 64 games page, you've proven your dislike of those titles and try re-wording it any way you can, but its still incomplete. You describe yourself as a otaku and yet don't seem to even bother learning the different names of Japanese things.

    Floppydog66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
    Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

    • Merge and create seperate section on List of Nintendo 64 games. --AlexOvShaolin 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If there is consensus on the List of Nintendo 64 games to exclude the Japanese (and presumably other language) titles, having a separate list is simply a way to avoid having to comply with consensus. People looking for a particular Japanese title can type it in the search box and be sent directly to the particular game's article page through a redirect. This list seems like unnecessary duplication. -- SiobhanHansa 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - I'm in favor of a selective merge. I believe the information on both lists have merit, though because of the large amount of overlapping information, two lists are not really necessary. I also think the final list can be altered to be more comprehensive and accurately display content from both lists. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Merge, as mostly the only information not present on the List of Nintendo 64 games is the Japanese name. JIP | Talk 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect Unnecessary duplication. Mukadderat 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the difference between List of Nintendo Entertainment System games and List of Famicom games ? I think this is the same here. List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games can evolve in the same way. "List of Nintendo 64 games" can include all american and european releases and "List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games" all japanese releases. PV250X 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I think the argument to keep those two separate is about as weak as keeping these two separate. Also, per WP:WAX, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete delete per nom. no context--NightRider63 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. Alternate titles should be presented in the list in the case of games that were released under different titles in different regions. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it could be improved to include the kanji titles, released dates, and one or two other useful "at-a-glance" bits information, then I would suggest keeping the article. If not, it should be merged and redirected. I must have been looking at the wrong article, because it already includes that information. Very Strong Keep or Merge as the list allows for easily finding a game in both English and Japanese, as well as release date and publisher information, making the page much more useful than just a simple list of games. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge - an easy-to-reference list of games that were never released stateside seems encyclopedic to me, but I have no objections to including them as a subsection in the overall list of N64 games just the same. As long as the information is preserved, it's fine with me. MalikCarr 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Listcruft. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The nom's reason for deletion is rather off-target-- what about English-speaking users who want to know about Japanese games? Going to a Japanese wiki, which is not going to be in English, is rather pointless for those users. I will further note that "delete per nom" and "delete, listcruft" entries might as well not be here, as they are essentially just votes, and AfD is not a vote. Jtrainor 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You might want to look at Wikipedia:Per. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Couldn't you also find those Japanese games on a one list that shows the North American, European, and Japanese titles, rather than two separate lists with a lot of duplicate content? (Guyinblack25 talk 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Keep or Merge. If we are able to integrate the article into the List of Nintendo 64 games without the article size going over 100kb, per Wikipedia:Article size, merge. If not, keep. Taric25 15:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The "guidelines apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages." Also, because of the ammount of overlapping material, it should probably be ok. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Merge into List of Nintendo 64 games. Assuming that there are no technological reasons for keeping the lists separate (that is: a Japanese N64 game is effectively technologically identical to an American one), they should be merged into one list, with a separate column for Japanese name. Since many games appear on both lists, I'm guessing that's probably the case. Terraxos 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An additional column would only serve to clutter the list. This is hightened by the fact that this would likely lead to not one, but two additional columns: one for romaji and one for kanji/kana (possibly even three columns if someone wants to push for translated titles). Furthermore, nearly a forth of the entries on the list weren't released in Japan, so a good portion would just be blank.--SeizureDog 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that too many columns will clutter the tables. Additional columns for the Japanese kana, romaji, and translation are not necessary and is kind of biased towards Japanese titles. Besides, that information can be found by clicking on the wikilink for the article itself. However I think adding a single column for alternate titles (European/Japanese/North American, which ever was released later) won't clutter things up too much and it will help make the current N64 list more comprehensive/organized. If it gets too cluttered, then some info can be condensed. For instance, the "Publisher" and "Regions released" columns could be condensed into one column with the use of " JP ", " NA ", and other regions attached to the publisher's name(s) depending on region. The WP:CVG has been leaning away from the use of flags for region releases anyway, so this would fit in with their guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
          • The publisher/region released merge idea seems somewhat reasonable, except it makes the list less browse-friendly. I like the current set up as it makes browsing for games released only in specific regions quick and easy. Having abbreviations may make it more of a chore, as one would have to scan each individual entry to see the regions. --SeizureDog 16:21, 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. PeaceNT 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Warcraft items

    edit

    Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also fails WP:N; I've played all of the main Warcraft games and don't remember a single item from any of them. I'm assuming this is all WoW-cruft. SeizureDog 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete. CSD:G4 Recreation of deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. Avi 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Natrina

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

    Non-notable Zionist organization. Its references are all located on someone's user page. -- Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_9&oldid=1234119132"