Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 14

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Music Creators Coalition

edit
Canadian Music Creators Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND NHRHS2010 talk 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link isn't really about the organization, but the other two look fine. Assuming that the latter two get put on the article, neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, check it out now. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not even sure why the hell this is being considered for deletion? link looks fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.43.11 (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think WP:BAND is a valid criterion against which to measure the notability of a musicians' organization? Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, appears to be unverifiable. Canley (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ropsley Panther

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

This was declined a speedy, hence brought here. The authors of the article are clearly acting in good faith (see the lengthy discussion on the article's talk page) but unfortunately the subject fails on a number of Wikipedia criteria.

First, it fails WP:N, I have been unable to find any online references to the 'Ropsley Panther' or 'El Diablo' as the article originally titled the beast.

Second, it fails WP:V, the links that are cited are not to the standard required for Wikipedia. Only one is from a reputable source, the BBC, but is actually a discussion page and merely collates reader contributions. Even allowing that and the other two links, none make any reference to the 'Ropsley Panther' or 'El Diablo'. In fact, the BBC refers to the Lindsey Leopard, a totally different species! The authors do make the case that other non-notable articles exist. However, according to WP:WAX this is not a valid argument for an article's retention. Unfortunately, in this instance the subject is just not notable enough. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As one of the authors, i would just like to say that we mean no harm by this, we would like to share our knowlegde of this animal and hope that others will add info as and when. Any reference to 'El diablo' (as is known locally by children and adults alike) this was removed as it was feared BlinkingBlimey would delete the page. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst:) Thankyou for your time,--The do dar man (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OKSo its like a pig to the communist slaughter, my article is to be deleted. Well thanks for you time, i hope you all lead dull, boring and un-interesting lives then die gracefully of old age, over and out!!!--The do dar man (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility, please, and try to assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks and i should have with held myself a bit more. I just seem to find it a bit disturbing that sodomy and beastiality or zoophilia as its called, is acceptable. Maybe if i practised these on the beast and wrote a book about it, the page could stay? I'm just saying that there appears to be more offensive/tabooed pages than some bloody black cat, and yes i realise i cant compare whats going on on other pages. As the page is not up to scratch would you mind hurrying up and deleting it, thankyou.--The do dar man (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored and other articles aren't up for debate here. AfDs stay open for five days, usually. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Morales

edit

Article is unverifiable and a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)Notability is determined by reference to reliable independent sources, but the only apparently notable people of this name are two football players and a retired boxer, all from the twentieth century. There are no sources for a 16th century Mexican leader called Isaac Morales;
2)Mexico City wasn't founded by Isaac Morales from the 1500's, it was founded by the Aztecs in 1325.
3)The borders of Mexico weren't protected by Isaac Morales' border patrol from the 1500's, they were in theory protected by Spanish soldiers under the command of Antonio de Mendoza and Luis de Velasco. In practice they weren't protected by anybody, because the borders of what was then called New Spain extended as far north as settlers wished to take them and as far south as military force and exploration could reach. The concept of a "border patrol" separate to the military or local police didn't become a reality until 1904, 350 years after the alleged Isaac Morales.
4)The "references" at the end of the article show a caricature of a Mexican bandit, what might be an Incan, and a zombie. While not conclusive proof of anything except minor vandalism, their inclusion suggests thr article creator doesn't take his subject very seriously.
In summary - a failure to meet any of the notability requirements for an article or a biography. A number of claims that conflict with well-referenced history, and evidence that the articlec reator considers the article something of a joke. Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - no encyclopedia content, no sources, soapboxing. Rudget. 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Practices in Judaism

edit
Sourcing Practices in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an article. The author would be better served to discuss changes to the articles mentioned on the relevant talk pages, rather than soapboxing about it here. shoy 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Delivery Man (Novel)

edit
The Delivery Man (Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Keep. Novel is published by a major publisher (Grove Press), and has one review link (with possibly more to be added). I'm adding this to the Novels Wikiproject and will ask if anyone there has information they can add to this article. 23skidoo (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no published review--the link is to a blog. DGG (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major publisher, major launch, major reviews. Film right sold already shows considerable interest. Many reviews, admittedly some mixed, however this appear to have all the signs of a launch a major new author. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those reviews show definite notability. It doesn't matter whether they are good or bad reviews: the fact that those publications chose to review the book at all demonstrates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Additional review coverage in enfusemagazine [1]. Also, there is review coverage by all major trade publications: Booklist, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal as well as reviews from major literary writers including Janet Fitch, George Pelecanos, Roland Muerullo, Jim Shepard and others. These reviews can all be found on the Amazon page for this book [2]Author is also the son of NY Times bestselling author Joe McGinniss (The Selling of the President 1968, Fatal Vision, others). So the book is published by a major publisher, has review coverage by all trade publications, and is being covered/reviewed by major newspapers and national magazines - these all show definite notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemartini1122 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was already speedily deleted. Non-admin closure.h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickia City

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

No hits on Google - so appears to be a hoax. Speedy deletion tag removed by creator. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, added the warning. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate chai

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

Delete per WP:OR. Obscure recipes can themselves be original research and also, Sarsaparilla appears to be in violation of WP:POINT by making this argument to bait me. Zenwhat (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. Sarsaparilla did it to bait me. To establish what I mean about the WP:POINT issue: I nominated Chocolate Thai for AfD a while back. Then, just recently, I nominated Sarsaparilla's article Theistic rationalism for AfD. She retaliated by creating this page, then leaving a snide remark on my talkpage about Chocolate Thai. Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I am a guy. Note the userbox on my page. Need I provide proof Wikimedia Commons style? Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly does not meet the criteria of being nonsense, of which there are only two categories:
  1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "akdjaioodjosfd5sdgjgdsiu489eh4 ohe89dsgjoisdjgo4dgsjha[j'z", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
  2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira toques

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

As per WP:NOT#MANUAL—Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Visor (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the weight to provide sources to prove notability lies on those who add the content. The old version is certainly better than the current, and gets rid of the WP:NOT#MANUAL concerns. Still lacks sources, however, so it still fails WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to do further editing. It isn't current policy to delete every article without references, but in any case I've added some cursory ones. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should fix the concerns. Change to neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you withdraw the nomination, then? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Visor (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agitainment

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

Neologism, per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, with original research issues. Looks like some band decided to coin this word to describe their product, and it has suddenly become a genre in this article. A prior article was deleted (speedy or prodded) apparently, but the new sources don't establish much of anything. Google hits also insignificant beyond proving this is a neologism. hateless 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a term I have heard and used many times, and I have seen it in print to describe some of the people mentioned above. Also I would dispute what Lifebaka says regarding "popular usuage", of course it can mean "in everyday usage" or "mainstream" and beacuse a term has not yet been picked up on or widely used does not necessarily make it a neologism. Articles have to start somewhere and I have seen many that are less notable and have fewer references that seem to make the grade, is it something to do with the subject matter? I would say it is a a term describing a distinct genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ‘Agitainment’ is a term I have not only heard on Radio to describe Mark Thomas' work but is in print and online many times to explain the music of Vortis. I have heard professional stand ups and musicians use the term retrospectively to describe past entertainers such as Andy Kaufman and Ted Chippington, so they can basically describe what is hard to categorise. This is why I put forward the notion of not only is it a real definition but it is also an important word that is actually much needed so these sometimes forgotten/ ignored artists (especially Chippington, Munnery and others who walk the fine line between performance art/ experimental artist and other) can be described succinctly and in a way others can understand and therefore may seek them out. The term 'agitainment' is a word that can give the performers on the list a footnote in history so they remain appreciated and may inspire others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesse 123 (talk • contribs) 10.23am Tuesday 15th January 2008— Nesse 123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I think if you have at least two independant sources using the same term anout wildly different expressions of the same kind of philosophy then it proves its own validty. I feel that the (at this point) incomplete list of practitioners needs to be put back up, the artists featured made the point of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Both sources are quoting the band in question, Vortis, and both times the authors used scare quotes. That's nowhere close to showing that the phrase is in any type of circulation. Also, you can't vote twice. hateless 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think if you google agitainment you will find that the term is used in reference to more than just vortis (although they are the majority). I have no idea what you mean by scare votes and i wasnt attempting to vote twice but to add a further comment, i probably should have edited it into my previous comment but didnt. It seems to me that you (Hateless) believe you are some kind of authority but you are not, its a debate and your personal opinion (as mine) is not "FACT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Tales of the Abyss

edit
List of terms in Tales of the Abyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a game guide-ish list that defines "terms" that should be contained within the main article if they're important. It has no place on this site. TTN (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policies are on articles like this. I created it when, at the time, there existed similar articles such as "List of terms in Final Fantasy VII" (which I notice no longer exists). I also created it because it felt weird to use terms in the other articles such as "hyperresonance", "replica", and "Grand Fonic Hymn" and need to explain them each time. However, if it violates Wikipedian policies or what-not, I don't have an objection to it being deleted. Sorry about that. King Zeal (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of established artists who have experimented with industrial rock

edit
List of established artists who have experimented with industrial rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This a section of Industrial Rock that was split off of the article. It's basicly a trivia list listing remixes and trivial facts like The Edge mentioned a few industrial bands in an interview. I don't think any of this except for the David bowie section is really "Artists experimenting" with the genre. Ridernyc (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funktry

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

Neoglism. It does exist and it is real but it's mostly used to describe Keith Urban's music. The only secondary sources I found were directly in relation to Urban not describing the music itself. I can't see how this could be expanded to be encyclopedic. WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NEO. Redfarmer (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was yet another keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year 10,000 problem

edit
AfDs for this article:
Year 10,000 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

year 65,536 problem, year 292,277,026,596 problem and year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem

Not significant, as these are occurring in the distant future. Voortle (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first, delete the others. These problems are every bit as notable as the year 2000 problem, with the exception that they're not happening yet. But since some people are taking the year 10,000 problem seriously and some not, it's already a topic of discussion, just like the year 2000 problem, which of course is notable. Keep that. The others are just amusing things posted on some college site, and are not serious topics of discussion.... yet. Delete those for now, perhaps bringing back the others when the problem's imminent, if Wiki (heck, the world!) is still around. Redbull47 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as the current nomination is cluttered with extraneous WP:POINT stuff. Renominate if you really think it's necessary, for just this page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (or merge to Y2K maybe) It's survived three previous nominations, but in response to some of the arguments made in favor of it: (a) if it was a satire on Y2K, it's pretty stale by now (b) if it's something you're worried about, you've still got 7,982 years left, and your descendants will laugh about their superstitious ancestors (c) if there's a computer 7,982 years from now that still uses the "old" four digit technology, what a triumph of engineering that will be (d) if it's here because someone is going to look up "year 10,000 problem", merge this to Y2K (e) if you think this is a problem for computer programs that have to calculate astronomical data 10,000 years in the future, rest assured that even now, in the year "02008" or "002008", someone smarter than you will be able to solve that particular problem. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to computer year storage rollover problem, perhaps also included Y2K. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's not for another 8,000 years, nonsense really to even think that the same type of system will be in use. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thinking like that has caused plenty of trouble to date. Even in 1998, I knew plenty of programmers who were uncertain whether Y2K was something they should anticipate. Choosing the Unix epoch of 1970 was frugal for file timestamps, but the date-related library routines would have been tremendously useful for general purpose date computations (mortgages, birth dates, etc.) had the epoch been set earlier. The Y10K limit is less restrictive than recent problems, but plenty of applications are sensitive to that kind of limit: MTTF, radiocarbon dating, and age of celestial bodies. See the articles referenced by Template:Time measurement and standards for many such examples. —EncMstr 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Year 2000 problem is easily distinguished from all the other "Year problem"s in play in that it's a past event, and the article thus has a wealth of material dealing with the run-up, event, and post mortem. 2038 and other future events thus would be a sensible candidate for their own separate article, although it would need to be edited 30 years+1 month from now to reflect that 2038 is now no longer a future event (that's what {{update after}} is for, right? :-)
Note also that yes, the year Y10K is not for another 8,000 years, but five-digit dates can be and are used today in certain circumstances, as the article says. Since the speedy keep is an apparent lead balloon, my vote would be strong not-delete as there is relevant content. At most, we could give a merge a try, with the obvious corollary that if any given year problem then appears to deserve it, it can be re-spun into its own article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please watch out for the argument from personal incredulity, which is one of many, many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I'm fairly sure this problem was mentioned, though not by that name, in Donald Knuth's "The Art of Scientific Computing". I listed a few other books that mention it briefly, from a Google Books search, on the article talk page. 2480 Google web hits can't all be wrong. Whether it's something we need to worry about is beside the point: those of us who tend to think like mathematicians talk/write about these things regardless, making them notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (changing to "keep or merge. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was merge, as merge seems to be the consensus. Anyone want to volunteer to merge these pages together? Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year 32,768 problem

edit
Year 32,768 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also:

Year 65,536 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Year 292,277,026,596 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I remember many years ago solving the problem of why $42,949,672.96 had gone missing from a bank account. The Year 32,768 problem article is the same - a totally non-notable, joke example of arithmetic overflow. And it does not even explain it very well. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • GFDL requires that the "authors" (handles, at least) of the information be accessable. If, say RightGot said:

The year 32,768 problem is a software bug that may occur in 32,768.

and that appeared in the new article. See, for example, Wikipedia:Merge#Full-content paste merger. One acceptable alternative is for the edit history of this article be copied to the talk page of the merged article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Or change to redirects and leave histories intact on the redirect pages, which is the easiest. As long as the information is accessible via knowing what is redirected to the page, then it passes. That is a rather odd effect of the GFDL, I must admit. And what about pages that are deleted? They were distributed and now the authors information is removed with the content? More technical but once you have distributed the info, you are bound by the license, even if you delete it later, correct? Pharmboy (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is pretty much where I was going, without knowing about the GFDL wrinkle: the most appropriate handling of a "delete...but should be mentioned somewhere else" outcome is to retain the old article's name as a redirect to "somewhere else", thus preserving its history and original content. Which is to say, "merge", at least according to what I thought the common definition of merge is.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NapoliRoma. They are, at least, notable memes. expensivehat (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if the consensus on this were to be "merge", what's the followup process? Seems like the "delete" and "keep" process would be pretty straightforward and instantaneous, but someone would have to do some real work for the merge, and a name for the merged document would need to be chosen. I'd be glad to volunteer to take a hack at creating such a page, but would also welcome insights into what its name should be.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although probably not notable enough for an article, it looks to me to be something which is not just a joke, but real -- at least to those of us who tend to think like mathematicians. Here, for example, is a source about it. Probably not a sufficiently reliable source etc. but this is just to show that it's not just something somebody made up for Wikipedia. Donald Knuth talked about similar things in at least one of his books on computing: possibly not this problem, but similar ones, including some far in the future. In reply to Pharmboy: when it was distributed, the author information should have been distributed with it, shouldn't it? So then it could be deleted from this site and that would be OK. Just my opinion on GFDL. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NapoliRoma's suggestion. I can see the point of an article on rollover years generally, but giving these "problems" their own articles is just silly. Hut 8.5 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - look at the other contributions by this editor. It's a Troll. andy (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I moved an article an spacecraft from "manned" to "human" saying that "manned" was sexist, andyjsmith is refering to me as a troll. RightGot (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's because almost every edit you've made so far is trivial at best and disruptive at worst. You've created a massive number of edits for responsible editors to check through. This article is an example. andy (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • nth merge to an omnibus year rollover problem page since as time passes, there will always be other problem years/dates identified, which are not notable enough to warrant their own articles. Travellingcari (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge ... I would suggest that there should be some cross-linkage between software bug or unusual software bug and these articles, because the Y2K problem is not mentioned or cross-referenced from either of these. The common types of software bugs section in the former article deals with technical and logic causes, but my feeling is that there should be an orthogonal set of 'functional types', one of which would be the 'calendrical problems' that are the subject of these articles. There are lots of other related types which aren't specifically related to software, such as temperature problems (a thermometer designed for a temperate environment will be challenged by use in an arctic or desert environment) and speed problems (most older cars could go faster than their speedometers could display). This doesn't help much in reaching a specific merger solution, but I thought I would articulate a few things that were on my mind about this issue. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Princess

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

Delete N/N per WP:MUSIC, no nothing! Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, thats fine, but unfortunately the "major" albums weren't released on notable indy labels. Off topic your English is quite good, you shouldn't be so self concious! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know, an "album of the year" or the follower is not published on a notable russian label? Hybscher (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey of Death

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

violates wp:crystalball, can't be verified. claims to be rated R yet not finished, link was to main wwe.com website, and a search for "movie" title brings up nothing. Possible hoax. Pharmboy (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figures Of Speech

edit
Figures Of Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hip hop group. Unable to locate secondary sources on band. Only reference is to Myspace page. Only released one indie record in 2007 though they say they've been around since 1992. Fails WP:BAND. Redfarmer (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. --Allen3 talk

Chilosa

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

Non-notable neologism. Mh29255 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, as it barely passes the notability guidelines. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Coppermine Photo Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication why this open-source photo software is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think it is claiming notability by the fact that it works with so many notable and popular server side programs for the web, and it is not an alpha or beta product, but an open sourced, stable build. I would think this crosses the threshold, if barely. Pharmboy (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable software. It may work with well known software, but notability as we know is not inherited. Otherwise all Plugins for many well-known software would need articles. Poeloq (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not arguing your decision, but this isn't the same as a plug in. It is stand alone software that is aware of many other software packages, thus acts as its own middleware. It is a somewhat unique feature, not something to be inherited. Pharmboy (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP: This is one of most popular Photo Gallery software on the web. Millions of sites use this software. The article needs a cleanup and overall re-write. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague hazy I-just-drank-a-bunch-of-coffee comment: I was under the impression Coppermine was one of the major players on the online photo gallery management software market; I've certainly seen it mentioned more than a few times. (Just a gut feeling - it doesn't seem to be included in Debian, for example, makes gauging the popularity a bit hard... though Debian popcon might be misleading, because quite a few WWW packages are "drop in the htdocs and enjoy" style installs and won't get installed by package managers, counted in popcon, or anything...) As such it could have actual media references etc. somewhere. Though I admittedly could very well be wrong here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith (anime)

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

I'm finding nothing about this anywhere. I'm suspecting it's WP:HOAX, especially since it claims to be an anime written by a person with a distinctly western sounding name. Redfarmer (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Gonad

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

Fails WP:FICT and WP:V. Until recently, this was a redirect to Viz (comic). Jauerback (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about X is not a valid argument for keeping an article. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence weak, it's not particularly unnotable in that context.--Him and a dog 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most well known of all the Viz characters. In fact possibly the most famous Viz character. More notable than the vast majority of the many other Viz characters with an article. I will even add references establishing notability myself if it isnt deleted. He has appeared in Viz hundreds of times. As for him not being verifiable, have you even googled him? Willy turner (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - famous British comic character. Davidbod (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Daily Telegraph calls him one of Viz's "classic inventions"[3]; the BBC says he's a "star" and a "household name"[4]; for the Independent he's the protagonist of a "classic toilet-humour cartoon strip"[5]; the Financial Times calls him a "people's favourite"[6]; to The Observer he's an "indispensable read"[7]; and he even gets name checks in the British Medical Journal[8] and Eminem's biography[9]. How many more reliable sources do we need? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this argument by far has the most weight of any of the previous ones. Had these sources been cited in the article, I would probably have never put it up for AFD. However, even these articles are pushing the cusp of "if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." definition for WP:FICT. They all mention Buster Gonad, but the character is not the subject of the article. Jauerback (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - based on my comment above. Jauerback (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the citations mentioned by Phil Bridger have now been added to the Buster Gonad article, together with additional information. The reason those citations weren't added earlier was because the article was little more than a stub. Look at the history section and you'll see that it only had any significant detail added in November 2007, when I started editing it. If the article had been allowed to grow for a few more months then it's likely that more references would have been added in the future. Incidentally, I also seem to remember that during the Gulf War at least one of the RAF bombers featured Buster Gonad nose art [10](as well as Johnny Fartpants, so I've added that reference. Ditto the fact that framed copies of the Buster Gonad cartoon are now collector's items[11]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabokov (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - In the future, I would advise you to create an article/stub with notability established from the beginning with references from verifiable sources. You can't continue to use the argument of "allowing it to grow". Yes, a stub should be given an opportunity to do so, but if there is no notability shown from the very start, it's going to be very hard to justify its inclusion. I did a Google Search (both web and news) before I nominated it, and I was unable to find any verifiable sources within the first 3-4 pages of search results (there were no results at all for the news search). I would recommend you start going through the other Viz comics and ensure all their notability is established before another one gets nominated for AFD by someone else. Jauerback (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tip. When you do a Google news search you only get by default entries for the last month. If you click on "all dates" on the left it searches the whole archive. That's how I got the first five of my refs. The BMJ one came from Google Scholar and the Eminem biography from Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I know about that, thought I had clicked it, but apparently, I hadn't. Thanks, though. Jauerback (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I've been making the same mistake, useful to know, so more thanks. It doesn't change my vote, though, I still think (as a Viz reader) that the cultural impact is from the comic as whole, rather than individual characters. I recognise I am going to be in a minority of one on this though! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and World War II

edit
Native Americans and World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was created to pacify a disruptive editor who was adding large amounts of material to the House Made of Dawn article. Essentially, I just hived off a big chunk of off-topic text and created an article to cover it (this action was approved by the mediator in the original dispute). Since then, the disruptive editor has been revealed to be someone who had already been banned for copying large amounts of material from paper encyclopedias into Wikipedia. For that reason, I suspect though can't prove that this entire article may be a copyvio. Even if that weren't the case, however, the fact is that this is a total dog's breakfast of an article. The topic may well be encyclopedic, but without anyone coming forward in well over a year to rewrite it, and without myself having the time to research the (large) subject extensively, it's just a mess that would probably put off anyone wanting to write about Native experiences in the second world war. Vizjim (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I've never heard anything about Native Americans having any invlolvment in WWII, and I'm somewhat of a History Buff, so it's probably not very notable if I don't know about it. User:Radman622 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been around since July 2006 with only one incomprehensible footnote? Violates WP:V. So let's make it a stub. But a Google search shows that sources do exist -- in fact there are plenty of them out there, including this bibliography and this excerpt and this on the Navajo Code Talkers. I don't think we should delete something where we see sources exist and the topic is encyclopedic, although I'm sympathetic with the idea of deleting. Unverified material can certainly be removed. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article is in need of references and cleanup, neither is reason for deletion, particularly since the topic is notable and sources most certainly exist. (Hey, they've made blockbuster movies about it!) At the very least, the article can be either stubbed, redirected to Code talker, or stubbed and add links to code talker and windtalker to the "see also." LaMenta3 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is absolutely a notable topic and needs sourcing and cleanup. I don't find it a terrible mess, either, just wanting in referenced material. For starters, 2500 struck me as an exceptionally low estimate for Native Americans in the military during the war; the Pentagon estimates over 44,000 served in theatre alone.[12] --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I knew about this before reading the article, and it is wikilinked enough above that I won't rehash their arguments. Completely notable, worthwhile, educational and the reason we have encyclopedias. Pharmboy (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely should be kept. Wanting articles can be cleaned-up, but it's not a valid deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and send to cleanup. You haven't heard of the Navajo Codetalkers? Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The only thing I knew about it previously was the use of the Navajo language for secure radio correspondence and the use of Navajo people to translate it. That does not seem to be mentioned, but it is very notable. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a bit sceptical of the overall value of many of these 'groups in World War II' articles (the material would be better placed in the relevant national histories of WWII or articles on the plight of the relevant group), but this topic seems notable and it should be possible to find references. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see where you are all coming from. Change vote to stub - a lot of the material here has to go, from the risk of copyvio if nothing else. I do hope that somebody cleans it up at some point, though. Vizjim (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, as lack of good reason was given for the deletion of this article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (Asia album)

edit
Phoenix (Asia album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod'd under WP:CRYSTAL, but removed by the author. Dlae│here 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I really don't think this falls under WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". The band has verified this album and its title, and even a month of release. Just because its release is in the future doesn't make it speculation. Torc2 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I applied the prod before it never had any links or even correct DABs, however, the amount of content is still little. Dlae│here 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Little content is a reason to improve, not delete. Also, there may not be much information to put in the article if the album is only just announced. Adding "more" information than is available would be considered original research. Pharmboy (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. The keep arguments noted that because of the publicity of death penalty trials and appeals in the United States, recipients of the death penalty are likely to be individually notable by standard criteria including biographic coverage. While WP:BLP can override a construction tag, any WP:BLP issues involved appear debatable and potentially decidable either way. This issue can be revisited and the article renominated for AfD if the arguments that members of list are individually notable in their own right turn out, based on experience, to be incorrect. Shirahadasha (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States death row inmates

edit
List of United States death row inmates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't really the appropriate place to maintain dynamic lists Bagheera (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's really not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia has many, many dynamic lists of varying usefulness. However, this list may or may not be considered to be indiscriminate information. I abstain for now pending a better deletion argument. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree there are a number of various dynamic lists, and I should have been more specific. The links on the list as created connect to dab pages that don't include articles on the individual inmates (at least that I saw). I've got several concerns here, amongst them the assumption that an inmate is notable specifically because they are on death row, and the relevance in an encyclopedia of a list of convicted felons. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to this list, I'm inclined to agree. I seem to recall precedent that people on death row cannot be considered notable simply based upon being on death row. I don't have discussions to back that up; perhaps someone else has a slightly better memory than I do. As there are so many people on death row in the U.S., and only a handful of them meet notability guidelines (meaning they are notable for something else other than being on death row--whether that notability is related to why they're on death row or to something else doesn't really matter), I think that the information would be better served, perhaps, by a category. That would allow the notable death row inmates to be "collected" in a central place and would be more reasonable given that the list doesn't provide any more information than a category would. What do you think? LaMenta3 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category of "notable people on death row" might not be bad, as Pharmboy points out below. Bagheera (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or possibly recreate In spite of a well meaning but misplaced nom. This one isn't easy. I understand the desire to have a list of the people, but the fact remains that the majority of them are not notable in their own right. Being sentenced to death (unfortunately) isn't enough to establish notability, by my interpretation. I can see lots of room for discussing the current state of executions (they are currently Stayed here in North Carolina and elsewhere, for instance) but just a list of people who are sentenced to receive the death penalty falls short in context and notability. Deleting this article would not stop anyone from creating an article on anyone who is shown to be notable and was given the death sentence, nor finding a way to create an article that lists "notable persons who have served time on death row". I don't think this is necessarily an indescriminate list (perhaps close, though), and I am not afraid of the dynamic nature of the list. I think a list of ALL people who had ever served time on death row might pass the test, assuming you had the disposition for each instance, and it went back as far as records could possible go. It could list the effects of the Supreme Court decisions over the years (ie: who was stayed permanantly, who was released, who go the chain/needle/hanging). As this list is NOW, and as it is titled, I can't see how it can pass via the policies. Pharmboy (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to construct: I started working on this page today, and I used the {{Underconstruction}} tag to let others know that it is under construction. This tag specifically states that the article is not to be tagged for deletion UNLESS it has not been edited in several days. Being that this may take a long time, I have set a goal of adding one state each day I get time to work on the page (unless others help, which I would appreciate). I am also considering whether or not to make the list a chart that would list other facts pertaining to each individual, such as details of their crime, the dates they were sentenced and placed on death row, etc. And most importantly, whenever any exist, I am planning on providing links to any articles about the inmates themselves or are otherwise mentioned in.Hellno2 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but use the intro to properly frame and limit the list to notable inmates, either because of their non-criminal notability, the notability of their crime, or the notability of their appellate activity. There is no purpose in a "complete" list, and no harm in having a dynamic list with a proper scope. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually disagree with Pharmboy above and can explain. Death row inmates are extremely likely to satisfy the notability guideline, in terms of independent news coverage. Media outlets everywhere in the country cover homicide trials, especially those leading to death sentences. As a consequence, the vast majority of these inmates will have received news coverage from multiple, reliable sources even before sentencing, and because of the various anti-death penalty groups, there are even more resources to help in maintaining this list of inmates actually on death row. Also, it's worth noting that the list is not that dynamic. In the 30 years since the death penalty was reestablished in the United States, only 30 executions have occurred per year (though sentences are a bit higher.) The number of death sentences in 2007 was only 110. Thus, once complete, the list would only need editing about twice a week (140 times a year) to be absolutely 100 percent accurate. That's not a huge burden, and I believe it would be easy to find reliable sources. If motivated editors are working on this, I see no reason not to give it a chance. --JayHenry (t) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I understand what you are saying, but you are opening a can of worms as every single person listed must be individually sourced. I think if you read the bottom of my reply, I was stating that I felt it would be notable without proving individual notability if you included everyone who has ever been on death row, instead of making the list "current", which may jive with what you are saying. While only a few sentences may be passed down every year, 3500 people [13] are on death row NOW, and each would have to be sourced. That is a buttload of sources. Expanding to everyone that has ever been on death row (I don't know, guessing 7000 maybe) wouldn't need to be individually sourced and may be a better article anyway AND I think it would pass policy more easily. Pharmboy (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One model that this could possibly follow is the superbly done List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people which is individually sourced. It's broken out over many different subpages, and many of these subpages have been classified as Featured Lists. It's larger than this list would be if it were completed. It would take a lot of time for this list to get there, but in my opinion it would be a worthwhile attempt. Possibly it will totally fail, but if it succeeds it'd be a really amazing and encyclopedic resource. The List of gay, lesbian and bisexual people never would have become so impressive and useful were it not given time to be developed. --JayHenry (t) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As JayHenry says, there are plenty of sources for each. You can probably assume that all death-row inmates would meet WP:N. Most death-row murderers would pass the biggest notability hurdle for convicts -- the WP:BLP1E standard at WP:BIO -- because there is generally enough written about the person's entire life by the time they get convicted, and they've generally done more than one newsworthy thing by the time they're accused of capital-offense murder (so the article is unlikely to be about one event). A list can give additional information to help readers navigate to the articles or at least identify murderers whose names they might have forgotten (something a category can't do). Noroton (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned earlier, I am still trying to decide the best format for this page. Meanwhile, I am working simply on building the list, state by state. Ultimately, it'll probably be some kind of chart, listing in columns information on the crimes each of these individuals committed that led to their death sentences, and the date each one was placed on death row. There could be other columns, too. If you Google the name of any of these individuals, you will likely get at least several hits, probably many more, given the amount of media coverge a capital murder case receives. That alone is usually enough in itself to establish notability. Since I have just started this undertaking, I have not determined where there are any Wikipedia articles on any of these individuals or cases pertaining to them, but I'm sure I will find out as I do more research. Any help others can provide me with building this page I will appreciate.Hellno2 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a side note, the article shouldn't have been nominated to start with, now that I see you did put up an 'under construction' tag in a proper fashion. That should have prevented this AFD, and nominator might want to read the policy on AFDs when tagged as such, for future reference. While I am sure the nom was in good faith, he should have waited a week and gave it time to develop. In my opinion, it would be entirely proper if he withdrew the nomination, in good faith, and we instead move the conversation over to the article's talk page, and see if we can find some direction for the article that would make a future AFD moot. Pharmboy (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When I started out this article, I listed just the DR inmates from one state - Alabama. This was supposed to be not its final form, but just a start. From that point on, I was hoping that if others became aware of this article's existence, they would not only assist in its construction, but give input to its format and scope.Hellno2 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected (again) to Jehovah. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah God

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

Article contains information already covered by Jehovah. When this page was redirected to Jehovah, the page creator undid it and added original research. My recommendation is that this page is either deleted or redirected back to Jehovah. Mh29255 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice and Olivia

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

Article about non-notable clothing store per WP:N that contains no references per WP:V and is probably nothing more than WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I've changed my mind a few times on this. The article is undoubtably spam and doesn't have any references, but that does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. Several other fashion labels and stores have their own articles, however, they mainly seem to have had a notable impact on the fashion industry or trends which Alice + Olivia do not (and I know that is not necessarily an argument to delete WP:WAX). However, it does seem to fail notability guidelines. Searches on Google and Google News do bring up a fair selection of hits for both the store and label, but once the sales sites are stripped out they seem to be entirely of the 'celebrity X wore...' style which I would consider trivial as per WP:COMPANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlinkingBlimey (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. And most of the article is also a copyvio from here -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge into the Anakin Skywalker article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception (Star Wars)

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

This article is pure OR, with no real referencing to assert notability. A topic like this would need multiple reliable sources, and has asserted none, and has accumulated a mountain of tags that have all gone unaddressed, because there isn't anything to add. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not even sure it's research, just speculation by the original editor. I can find nothing online to back up the assertion that Qui-Gon Jinn believe the 'chosen one' would be a virgin birth (although I'm not prepared to subject myself to that film again to check this). Even with sources this should be merged with Anakin Skywalker. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anakin Skywalker (with option to keep as an article size subpage split if necessary). The topic does seem so minor, however, that it would likely be best tied to the background of the character to which it is related. Further, it provides some good real-world notability to the Anakin character. At first, I thought hell had frozen over and I agreed with Judgesurreal (no hard feelings, buddy), but the concept seemed such that there would be some scholarly work on it, so I did a Google search. To my surprise, I found a good few books that give varying amounts of treatment to the subject:
    1. Žižek, Slavoj (2006). The Paralax View. MIT Press. (pp 100-1)
    2. Zizek, Slavoj (2001). The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?. Verso. (pp 121-3)
    3. Shone, Tom (2004). Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer. Simon and Schuster. (pp 285-7)
    4. Koschorke, Albrecht (2003). The Holy Family and Its Legacy: Religious Imagination from the Gospels to Star Wars. Columbia University Press. (pp 178-88)
    5. Wellings, Nigel (2000). Transpersonal Psychotherapy. Sage. (c. p 53)
  • Delete entirely, and copy the links the editor above provided to the Anakin Skywalker takl page for some intrepid editor to skim through for appropriate material for that article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the material found by LaMenta--its sufficient for an article on the concept as well as adding to the article on the character. An excellent example that there is in fact real world context and real world sourcing for even apparently unlikely material. It should sevre as a caution. DGG (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anakin's article. Immaculate conception really is a small, relatively unimportant aspect of the character, but if those references have good information, I say go ahead and devote a section to it on Anakin's page. Grey Maiden talk 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A thank-you for LaMenta3 for doing necessary and important work that the nominator refused to do. --Kizor 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...the article still has no cited references, so it is not yet established there are any references that can be used. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the burden of proof for substantiating the claims in an article are on the editor adding (or restoring them). To date, no editor on this article has done so. It is not the responsibility of someone nominating an article for deletion first to go poking around for material that other editors should have included in the first place. --EEMIV (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. All that is required is that it be shown that reliable sources exist or have a strong potential to exist. Adding the sources to the article is a matter for general cleanup. And yes, it is the responsibility of the nominating editor at AfD to do a cursory web search (which is commonly accepted to include Google web, books, scholar and news) to establish whether there is a strong potential for the existence of reliable sources. This is not expected to take more than 5 or 10 minutes. If sources exist, then tag the article, perhaps leave some links on the talk page, or if you're feeling ambitious, add them yourself. If your cursory search turns up nothing, then go ahead and nominate. This should be common practice for ALL AfD nominations. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SecuTech Solution Inc

edit
SecuTech Solution Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN copy protection technology company (this is the "Canadian" SecuTech, maker of "Unikey"); no news hits, superficial G hits, none of which establish notability. This article is the product of an SPA. This was a declined speedy by User:WebHamster, and then a disputed PROD, and so now, here we are: Delete.

--- tqbf 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was

Nomination withdrawn by nominator, see below. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WinterKids

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

Non-notable. No achievements of merit. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion, and the result was keep with a call for cleanup. Tony Fox found links to this band, but did not add them to the article. W.marsh closed the debate after 8 days and two "votes" back in May07, so it is possible that a second nom is appropriate for greater consensus. I have to ask though, Kingturtle, did you look in the article's history before nominating, and in a related question, did you attempt to cleanup the article before nominating? Keeper | 76 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at the articles history. There has been nothing added to this article to make it notable. And no, I did not attempt to clean up the article because IMHO a clean up would not make the band suddenly notable. The article's problem IMHO is not that it is messy, but that the band is not notable. Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks Kingturtle for the clarification, I wasn't assuming bad faith there and I appreciate your thorough response. This band, however, appears to meet several of the criteria of our current WP:MUSIC guideline. Some of these points, standing alone, would not notable make, but put together, I think we've got a viable article here in need of cleanup, not deletion:

1. Have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, see [14], [15], and [16].
2. Have an album(s) that are produced by a major record label (in this case, Little House/Columbia Records), one release in Japan, one release in UK [17]
3. Have received radio play on major stations (in this case UK Radio 1 and XFM) [18]
4. Were named "best new act" (informally) for SxSW by a radio DJ [19]
5. Performed at a major venue/festival, SxSW.
6. "Mini" toured the UK at album release [20]
Fair enough. I'll gladly withdraw this AfD. I hope that someone can put those items into the article. Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the searches (and pilfered a couple from the previous AfD), so I don't mind the work as I've done half of it. It may not be today, or tomorrow for that matter, but it won't be 8 months like last time :-). Good thing we've got time. Keeper | 76 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of less common dragons in Dungeons & Dragons

edit
List of less common dragons in Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No secondary sources to prove notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The articles are merely lists of statistics—Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagrashtak 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gem dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Planar dragons (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Mujahideen

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

I am nominating this article as a neutral party. Concerns have been expressed that the title of the article is a neologism. Related to that concern, some editors expressed the connected belief that the article is inherently contrary to NPOV and unavoidably original research. Whether or not the topic is notable as such is another related issue. Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I checked Google Books. "Bosnian Mujahideen" returned only 7 hits (1 doubled) + Bosnian Muslim and "Bosnian" mujahideen forces (most of these used "mujahideen" not "Mujahideen", btw - there was no organization called Bosnian Mujahideen).
This while Bosnia Mujahideen (not "Bosnia Mujahideen") returned ~380, "foreign fighters" bosnia returned 56, "foreign volunteers" bosnia returned 42, and "muslim volunteers" bosnia returned 72.
Incidentally, there are several articles covering this subject (Mujahideen#Bosnia and Herzegovina, The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war#For the Bosniaks, 7th Muslim Brigade as of these I'm aware of). --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding "Bosnian Mujahideen" (sounds like some organization, capital letters and all), not "mujahideen in Bosnia" (covered in several articles). Also why do you think "mujahideen" is "POV-loaded"? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand where exactly in the article was the term "Bosnian mujahideen" used? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that I suggest that the article name is moved to Bosnian mujahideen so that it is a descriptive title. The BBC says mujahideen in Bosnia which is the same as saying "Bosnain mujahideen" as an example of similar use see "British Gurkhas" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the same. They were not Bosnian mujahideen, like there were Afghan mujahideen in the case of Afghanistan. They were foreign mujahideen. Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) is the term often used for the Muslim volunteers to fight on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. is not true. It's used very rarely - almost never. El-Mujahid, on the other way, apparently was an actual name of the foreign volunteer unit. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Gurkhas are not British. Your argument about the content of the article should be on the talk page of the article, rather than here which is to discuss if the page should be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: British Gurkhas - Gurkhas (yes, exactly because they "are not British"). Now you understand, on your own example? Also, I did not nominate it (or even suggested it). The persosn who did didn't came here for some reason. (I guess I'll tell them now.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't understand your position. Just because Wikipedia does not have an article entitled "British Gurhkas" does not mean that the expression is not used and is a shorthand for Gurkhas who are or have served the British Crown,[21] just as Indian Gorkhas is used as a shorthand for Gorkhas who have server in the Indian Army.[22]--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HanzoHattori's "argument" falls under WP:OSE: "To simply say 'Other Stuff Exists' as one's sole rationale for creation, retention, or deletion (using an 'other stuff doesn't exist' direction) is neither convincing nor proper, and usually not acceptable in discussions." --Hereward77 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You know, I checked, and "British Gurkhas" actually is used in literature. But no-one redirected Brigade of Gurkhas to "British Gurkhas". Amazing, how can it be? You've got to do this ASAP, I guess. (And there's also British Gurkhas Nepal, which is AN ACTUAL NAME OF ORGANISATION, too. Not someone's own invention, which is then falsely claimed to be "often" used.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog, isn't it? I just checked this guy, and this is what I found: "He currently writing a book about terrorism titled From Bosnia to Beslan: How the West Spread al-Qaeda." :eyesroll: Yeah, a real expert. Oh, and what else? "He began his career in journalism at Spiked's predecessor, the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Living Marxism, until it was forced to close following a libel action brought by ITN." The libel case was, incidentally, regarding Serbian crimes in Bosnia. (And LM also denied the Rwandan Genocide.[23] Nice guys, these "revolutionary communists".) I have no idea why The Guardian allows him to even blog on their website. (Ah, and "O'Neill has ridiculed those who wish to take action to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle global warming." He's a real expert on everything!) --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstanding the web site. The Guardian place their editorials and opinion pieces on this site and invite comment on them. They also place other articles by journalists on this site. The site has an editorial overview including and editor for commissions which the piece by Brendan O’Neill is, (see Comment is free for more details). The Guardian Online profile of O’Neill makes it clear that he is left wing, but one would expect that for people who contribute opinion pieces to the Guardian, and the profile states that "His journalism has been widely published on both sides of the Atlantic, including in the Spectator, the New Statesman, the Guardian, the Catholic Herald, the American Prospect, Reason, Slate and Salon magazines, and the Christian Science Monitor. He also writes regular reports for BBC News Online and is British correspondent for the Polish political weekly Prze Kroj." Which should give you some idea why the Guardian commentisfree site commission articles from him. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is liberal, not "revolutionary communist". Here's what The Guardian said about Living Marxism: Life after Living Marxism: Fighting for freedom - to offend, outrage and question everything; Genocide? What genocide? Serbian atrocities were not the only ones Living Marxism tried to deny; calling themj Poison in the well of history; and even Someone's dumb - and then, after "Living Marxism has learnt the hard way that it cannot throw stones through windows and be able to run giggling down the street without being chased", allows LM veterans to continue their lies... now in the The Guardian? Oh. Okay, makes a perfect sense I guess. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is used to describe the mujahideen operating in Bosnia, for example, see the research paper and book with the title "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" [my bold] by terrorism expert Evan F. Kohlmann (published, among other things, in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs) on Bosnian Mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks. The article is based on reliable references and the matter presented in as NPOV as possible. Note that I have been involved as an editor in this article. However, I would have nothing against changing the title from "Bosnian Mujahideen" (capital "M") to "Bosnian mujahideen" (small "m"). (Osli73 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. It's more like "Afghan-Bosnian...Network" (of mujahideen), not "(Afghan-)Bosnian Mujahideen". Geez, even book you linked is actually called The Afghan-Bosnian Network - no "Bosnian mujahideen" whatsoever. I just showed you there are only 7 books mentioning this phrase (out of several hundred books more or less on the issue), and not in the titles but AT ALL. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Osli73, there is no need for such misrepresentation of sources. The title you cite: "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" by Evan F. Kohlmann war just a research/working title (and it is about the network), he changed it when published his book into a subtitle "The Afghan-Bosnian Network" (without mentioning Mujahideen). Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Osli73. Mujahideen do operate in Bosnia, and I have seen a report on NTV Hayat about a document which clearly states that there are mujahideen operating in Bosnia. --Prevalis (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this is amusing how everyone keep misunderstanding the issue. Oh, did I mention there's even no "Afghan mujahideen" article? There was, but now it's just redirect - to the main article (mujahideen). "Bosnian Mujahideen" article is a sole separate one. I don't comment on its content, because frankly I didn't read it (it looks badly written, though). But I don't think it's needed. So, DELETE. If stuff there is any stuff okay, then integrate with The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war, 7th Muslim Brigade, El Mujahid, whatever (I noticed there's much stuff about indicted persons, why not make their own articles?). Oh, I just noticed El Mujahid (which was apparently the actual name of the unit) was made only a redirect by Osli to the supposed Bosnian Mujahideen group (who claims his term is "often used", while it's not - see my searches). Claear enough now? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I did another search: [24] - 4 out of 10 first hits are about a team of Sarajevo videogame players, while the rest is mostly video sharing websites - plus a blog entry. The next page is the same, still mostly about a clip (titled Bosnian Mujahideen: Yesterday & Today), and again these videogamers. In these top 20 hits, there is only one actual article (Reuters), which (besides the title, which identified the country, not a supposed group) only mentioned "former Islamic Mujahideen fighters", "foreign Mujahideen" (twice, bald mine), "MUJAHIDEEN", and "the Mujahideen" also twice (as well as simply "ex-fighters", "former fighters", and just "foreigners").[25] This how "often used" this term is. Ergo, "Bosnian Mujahideen" article should be about a videogame clan from Bosnia and a video clip on Youtube clones (the latter one being the vast majority of all "Bosnian Mujahideen" hits, that is 862[26] - with only 438 about the Counter-Strike players etc.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanzo, I don't really understand your reasoning here. Just because there are video game players calling themselves "Bosnian Mujahideen" (wherever did they get that idea from, one can always ask, though) has no bearing on the academic use of the term - as exemplified by the Kohlmann article. Just because there is a lot of 'noise' on the internet when you search for the term on Google doesn't mean it's not a valid term that is also used in an academic environment. I agree that there are many other terms for the "Bosnian Mujahideen", though I believe this one is the best.Osli73 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And (mostly) only them. Where they got it... from you? Evan F. Kohlmann wrote about "Afghan-Bosnian mujahideen network", not about a group called "Bosnian Mujahideen" (see the confirmation in his final book). So, my proposition after I searched google for books and websites: Bosnian Mujahideen is a group of Counter-Strike players from Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are often accused of fragging other players a lot. It is also a title of a popular video on the Internet (titled Bosnian Mujahideen: Yesterday & Today). Rarely, it was also used to describe foreign mujahideen who fought during the Bosnian war (see the role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war). (An explaination, because some people don't understand many things: this was an example of sarcasm.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanzo, as I've stated before. Google searches and Bosnian video gamers isn't a relevant here. What is relevant is that (a) there certainly were Bosnian mujahideen and (b) the term is used by Kohlmann. However, I can agree on changing from Mujahideen to mujahideen.Osli73 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is revelant here? (a) "you say so, and almost EVERY SINGLE BOOK AND ARTICLE is wrong"? (b) you think one guy used it, when he really didn't"? (I explained you few times already, and I'll do it again: the phrase used by this single person was "Afghan-Bosnian mujahideen network/Afghan-Bosnian network", not "Bosnian mujahideen") Whoah, that's a lot. Don't delete my stuff. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also object to the title "Mujahideen in Bosnia" which in Google search returns 'about 2,810 for "Mujahideen in Bosnia"' one of which is a Reuters report and another the previously mentioned BBC article. Personally I think that "Bosnian mujahideen" is more elegant, but I could understand if you thought it confusing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because they had their unit, and it's name was El Mujaid. Like, what is better title, OMON or "Paramilitary police in Russia"? There was El Mujahid article before Osli came around with his "often". There's also a an article on their parent unit (7th Muslim Brigade). --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the post war issues (which to date have not ended) when the foreign volunteers were no longer in military units but their presence in Bosnia is still considered to be a political problem (In the way that those who volunteered to fight for the Bosnian Serbs or the Bosnian Croats do not seem to be)? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. This is briefly mentioned, but might be expanded (and the article re-written if needed). --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I looked into the issue. Actually, the small before-Osli article was redirected into the parent unit article by the original author.[27] Then Osli came around and did this weird-ass thing:[28]. This was fixed later in this way:[29] it is now. So, no, the original writers decided the 7th Muslim Brigade is enough and now I agree. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Osli keeps stealing this article for himself. No matter the original author of most of the article redirected it elsewhere. Stylish. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now I looked onto 7th Muslim Brigade talk page and the Bosnian Internet War goes on there, too. But, it's not my problem and actually I don't know enough on this subject. I'm only here because Osli was linking his BM as a "main article" everywhere he could, sparking negative reactions from some other users. I've got interested and it turned out the term was indeed largely invented by him. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[COMMENT REMOVED] --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanzo, what do you mean by this comment and who are you referring to?Osli73 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that he/she was referring to me.[30] People without an argument often resort to ad hominem attacks. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[DELETED REMARK 09:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)] "Concerns have been expressed that the title of the article is a neologism. Related to that concern, some editors expressed the connected belief that the article is inherently contrary to NPOV and unavoidably original research. Whether or not the topic is notable as such is another related issue." But congratulations on discovering I was reffering to you in the comment directed to you. At least you eventually understood this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was around 6,000 foreign Islamic fighters in Bosnia, including senior al-Qaeda people. Even Rupert Murdoch's pro-establishment Sky News admits that. [31] And even if the Srebrenica massacre did happen, it doesn't erase the fact that Izetbegovic was an Islamic fundamentalist whose views were at odds with Western democratic principles. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And even if the Srebrenica massacre did happen". Get out. --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to "Jenin massacre" and you'll see what I mean. I might add that Tim Marshall mentions the word 'mujahideen' eight times in his Sky News report. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[COMMENT REMOVED] The actual number of hits is 1 not 738[34], and 5 (actually 4, because there is the "network" again) not 889.[35] The new definition of "plenty" is now "1". --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, turned out I was wrong - "plenty" is now "null" (the only article found does not contain this phrase in a serious meaning, and istead says While bin Ladenite propagandists, as well as Western journalists, have expended a vast quantity of ink on the topic of the Bosnian "mujahideen," in reality they played almost no perceptible role in the war.). --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Strong delete) There is no concrete evidence of Bosnian Mujahideen(s). Just because of one or two books that were written with clear bias we cannot write an article on Wikipedia [that is based on one book]. This was why an article concerning the Muslim causalities at Jasenovac was deleted a few months ago, since there were only a couple of books on the issue. There needs to be historical research backed by various sides in order for someone to write about this issue on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog nor is a 'web site' designed to formulate new ideas or concepts. We had disputes about this new formation of concepts concerning "Serbophobia", "Bosniakophobia", and "Croatophobia" articles. Besides Darko Trifunovic, a Serb, who is a terrorism expert claimed/supported this issue and other similar made up issues. He was supposed to be the host of the "11th Congress of European Police" but his invitation was revoked due to uprise against him. The only reason many Bosniaks and others rose up against him is since they knew he was wrong for claiming that the Srebrenica Massacre (International Crimes court sees it as genocide) was not genocide. The international community sees it as genocide. Plus, he mentioned about the role of BiH in supporting Islamic terrorism, etc. He is a completely biased person who was prevented from hosting the 11th Congress of Eu Police with reason. The European Union does not view Bosnia as a place of Islamic Terrorism. Therefore (having said all of this), this article is based on complete bias and not enough historical evidence to prove such a great existence of Bosnian Mujahideen fighters. Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here mentioned Darko Trifunovic in any way. The plural of mujahid is actually mujahideen. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another test. As another user (unintentionally) showed, Google News Archives search also shows that there is only 1 hit on this phrase[36] (actually 0). Google Scholar comes up with only 5[37] (actually up to 4). ENOUGH NOW? If it's still "not a neologism", I don't know what is. --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term simply isn't used. It appears very sporadically, even on the internet, and has been shown to be an inherently POV characterization. The subject that it's supposed to cover is addressed in numerous other articles that have been mentioned here; there is no reason why the supporters of this one can't simply redirect their efforts there, instead of causing needless dispute over a controversial name. Live Forever (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, certain Bosnian trolls have deleted a lot of material from mainstream sources in these articles, replacing it with UN.Org whitewashes - hence the creation of this article. I was blocked by Wikipedia for restoring this material, and right now this is the best article on the subject. Bosnia is now regarded as a major base for radical Islamists in Europe. Deleting this article would be tantamount to a political cover-up. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because it is:
  • a POV fork
  • fabrication
  • written by a user with a scary block log
  • supported by another user with anti-Muslim agenda.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being anti-Muslim and anti-Islamism are two entirely different things. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is well referenced and all info in other articles should be merged into this. Also, I suggest the name Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.: Contrary to what has been claimed, the expression "Bosnian mujahideen" is not used colloquially, as is demonstrated by the many negative Google searches, and so at best it's an ORish neologism. Also, it's blatantly wrong, as the people concerned were mostly foreign fighters, so they were obviously NOT Bosnian. If someone wants to write an article on this subject, they should write it under "El Mujahid". The current article is badly written, badly formatted, and clearly non-neutral. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just rename it Mujahideen in Bosnia? They clearly did operate in Bosnia, and there were mujahideen units within the Bosnian army itself. And, yes, they were trained by the Iranians. Dr. Yossef Bodansky covers this issue extensively in his two books on the Bosnian conflict. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It is notable, and has been covered in the mainstream media. As I said earlier, Tim Marshall used the term mujahideen eight times in his Sky News report: The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam in Bosnia --Hereward77 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is article called Mujahideen, but we are talking here about Bosnian Mujahideen, this isn't a common name. Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we are discussing a name change. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Paramilitary forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, per my modified comment above? Jehochman Talk 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism is not the same term as foreign volunteers (a volunteer isn't a terrorist by default), this subject is covered in The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you and your friend "The Dragon of Bosnia" have repeatedly whitewashed that article, deleting material from mainstream sources. That is why this one had to be created. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I wonder if it could be anything shorter but if thats ok with people, I'm ok too. In any case, any kind of rename would work out better than what we have right now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Radical Islam in the Balkans? --Hereward77 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds better and applies more broadly than what I was going to suggest "Islamic extremists in the Balkans". I like the term radical Islam. Its short and accurate. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could you please explain: 1.) What exactly is radical Islam? 2.) Where is it found in the Balkans? 3.) Why such information doesn't belong in previously existing articles? Thanks. Asim Led (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the ideology, see Islamism. Where is it found? I think we have provided enough sources here already, but here's another: Wahhabism: From Vienna to Bosnia --Hereward77 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a clearly notable (and highly encyclopediac) topic. It is clearly a pretty well sourced article. POV problems here can easily be fixed without deletion. Yahel Guhan 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Yahel Guhan, what, exactly, are the POV issues you refer to? I have tried to portray this topic in a serious and NPOV manner, basing the statements on good sources.Osli73 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at previous discussion? Nobody's denying that some of the material in this article could be used elsewhere, but it has an inherently POV title and its contents are already discussed elsewhere. Asim Led (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asim Led, exactly, what are the POV issues you refer to?Osli73 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This article is specifically about radical Islamist activity in Bosnia, and should not be diluted into other articles. This is a notable issue which deserves a Wikipedia article. Rename to Radical Islam in the Balkans, per myself and Matt57. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, places are notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bere, Botswana

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

This is one one several articles that seem to amount to a list of small villages. I would like to see the articles in Category:Villages in Botswana merged or removed. There is no assertion on notability in any of the ones I've checked that would justify a separate article. This is one expample. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Shippūden the Movie 2

edit
Naruto: Shippūden the Movie 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article violates WP:CRYSTAL since there is no definitive date as to when this movie is supposed to come out. Also, the sources are not reliable since they are in Japanese. This article should be deleted.dposse (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a notable movie in production, based on a popular animated series, that will come out this year. The WP:CRYSTAL violation I don't see; all the sources say that the movie is coming out in 2008 and there's no speculation about release date in the article. A lack of a specific release date is not speculation or crystalballing - should we delete each and every unreleased flim that doesn't have a release date for crystalballing? Further, language does not determine whether a source is reliable; it is verifiability, and I'm pretty sure that the TV station Naruto: Shippūden is broadcast on, as well as the studio that's releasing the movie can verify that this movie exists, is in production and will be released this year. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are not still sure we can use this [[38]] as an external link and happy end.Tintor2 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not reliable", Since when is japanese a dead language that no one understands anymore? Just cause it's in another language does not mean it loses credability.And as for the showing date I have this to say: Work in progress. A definitive date for a movie's showing is not given until shortly before it is completed(I think). Also in your guideline, check the part that says "almost certain to take place".Lastbetrayal (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep did you even read WP:CRYSTAL? it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL at all. and Also, the sources are not reliable since they are in Japanese. wow that just dumb. as mentioned above the movie does exist, so it needs a wikipedia page on it also It is a notable movie in production, based on a popular animated series, that will come out this year.--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Animum Criterion G11: Blatant advertising (non-admin close). —Travistalk 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therma-Tru Doors

edit
Therma-Tru Doors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was previously speedily deleted under criterion G11 (blatant advertising) but has been recreated. MSGJ (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Just because it was recreated, doesn't mean it's still not spam. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supergoal

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

Previously nominated with decision to Keep on 28 September 2006. Since, there has been no meaningful development of the article, though both contributors to the debate said that sources/references were needed and it has been so tagged since October 2006. Despite the original decision, I think this article amounts to little more than a dicdef of a neologism, albeit one with some use, but it is far from being an encyclopaedic article. I doubt it ever can be, given the 15 months chance it has had. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Procedural nom on behalf of Emeraude, No opinion on deletion) UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy G4 by Black Kite. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Danish: Super Snacks!

edit
AfDs for this article:
Illegal Danish: Super Snacks! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been removed so many times before, it isn't funny. Not Notable, and seems like an ad. Fangz of Blood 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Baker

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

Blatant hoax. See Google results. Prod removed by author without comment. Author's only other contribution was a similar hoax article about Ellie Baker's duo partner. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death knight

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

A RPG class which is not notable. This should be merged into a list of classes, or deleted. Fangz of Blood 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know. Every time you say that I come up with about 5-7 independent sources. Currently I getting ready to go over the works of Clark Ashton Smith who, if I remember correctly, had a Death Knight like figure in The Empire of the Necromancers and it was sited in other works as being an influence. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be nice if you could use terms like stock character correctly. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term stock character describes this fictional character perfectly. For instance, the intro to this article describles him as "a death knight", rather than giving him a name. The name does not really make a difference as they are all interchangeable; you can refer to him as the "Black Knight", "Evil Knight" or "Dark Knight" (otherwise known as "Night Knight"). You will find lots of trivial sources on the internet mentioning the Death Knight, because when it comes to stock characters, one name fits all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just in case you haven't read it, this article is about a creature, NOT a character. So please pay attention--your refusal to do so is making you look bad.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is the real issue, not whether or not this is a stock character. Some stock characters are notable; some are not. If you want to argue that being a stock character is a valid reason for deletion, you should bring that up on the talk page for the policy. Rray (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources provided at the time of writing are neither reliable secondary sources nor do they assert any notability; all of them refer to primary sources in which the stock character is mentioned. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see multiple reliable secondary sources asserting notability. The consensus here and on the talk page of the article will determine the outcome at any rate. Rray (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the references given provide any evidence of notability, nor do they assert any; they are primary sources that show that this stock character appears in many publications; none of them assert that the character is notable per se. For all of the 2,600 other characters, you will find similar sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Easy to say but difficult to prove. If you look at the references you have added, you can see that they support the content related to the primary sources; that is where the is an instance of a Death Knight, you have added a reference. However, we already know that stock characters will make appear many times in multiple games and books - this is not in dispute; what is the issue here is did the appearance amount to anything notable: was the character given an important role, for instance, or did he make an important speech. I think you have proven that this stock character exists in many fictional worlds, but not that he is notable per se in the real-world. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You commented earlier that all of these are primary sources. That's incorrect; several of the sources listed are from secondary sources. White Dwarf magazine is one example. Rray (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment That reviewer says that the Death Knight is "one of the more interesting additions in the book" can hardly be classed as reliable secondary source. For starters, that is hardly an assertion of notability; secondly it is a passing mention of the character in a review about another subject althogether. I am afraid that your understanding of WP:RS and WP:FICT is sadly misplaced. What is needed is more than just a mention in a telephone directory; some analysis, context, critism, details of the characters origins, development. Instead there is long list of instances where the character has appeared in books. This stock character is going to pop up in lots of places, but outside of those sources, there is no notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of policies here is fine. Most of the article I provide Keep opinions for are kept, so you might reassess your opinion. At any rate, I'd request that you comment on the issues related to the article rather than making things personal and condescendingly denigrating my understanding of policies here. This discussion is about whether or not this article should be deleted; it's not about whether or not I understand the policies and guidelines here. Thanks. Rray (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to the point Gavin your opinion here is only that, your opinion, not policy. And until you actually read the sources for notability I have put here it is at best an uninformed opinion. Web Warlock (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit that I am not a PhD in role-playing games, but I can differentiate between primary and secondary sources. For example, a (disputed) assertion has been made in the article that the Death Knight has "influences" on other games. I dispute this statement of fact as it is unsupported by any evidence. There may be other games with the a stock character of the same name, but using the same character is not the same as having a direct influence on the designers or creators of a game and none of the sources you have provide proves this. The sources you have provided are primary sources; if the creators of other games had been influenced by this Dungeons and Dragons character, they would have stated this explictly - you cannot imply influence with providing evidence of this link. I am begining to believe that you are hiding behind references and weasel words in order to disguise the lack of real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reasons on this. Firstly, the nomination doesn't give a real reason for deletion, it simply says "not notable" without telling us why it's not. Secondly, the article goes beyond game guide information (just because it's from a game doesn't mean it's game guide). Thirdly, all of Wikipedia policies appear to be followed. I simply cannot see a reason for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Web Warlock and others. The existence of multiple reliable sources indicates notability. AfD isn't the appropriate venue to discuss a merge; that's what article talk pages are for. Rray (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework - What with all the "needs work!" templates at the head of that page, I would suggest someone sit down and address those concerns. If the article is still not worth keeping around at that time, scrap it. Howa0082 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Webwarlock. "Fangz" should read articles before putting them up for AfD--this article is about a creature, not a class--the infobox even says that.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Fangz" should probably stick to topics he knows something about, or at the very least bother to read the articles in question. Wikipedia works better that way. -- Poisonink (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Webwarlock, per Poisonink, per whomever you choose, really. As D&D monsters go, this is one of the more notable ones. Iquander (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Webwarlock, Masterzora. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the sources listed are TSR/WotC. Hence it fails WP:N and WP:RPG/N, unless third-party sources can be found. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have now added 16 inline citations. 3 were from the article before, 4 are from WotC/TSR with one of those detailing the Death Knight in the upcoming 4th Edition game (it was a featured article on the new game) and 9 are from third party independent publishers. This is just the information in my personal library. I am tracking down a reference that might indicate that the Death Knight was based in part on the draugr of myth and legend. Web Warlock (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per multiple references. Also publication history & influences section add out of universe notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Webwarlock and others.Shemeska (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator should research what the article is about rather than jump to a conclusion about it, so based on the reason for deletion i say keep the article. also based on the fact that this entity is in many notable works, such as best selling novels as well as sourcebooks for the game itself, it is not obscure to be not notable. additional comment at the rate many of these notability tags are popping up, i could find thousands of things on Wikipedia that i have never heard of. would that mean they are not notable to everyone, or just myself? again i think the issue of notability needs to be addressed or explained to some people (including myself would be nice) before there is nothing left on Wikipedia at all, unless it is something known to everyone worldwide. sadly a site that could be used to provide much information on many subjects seems to be being castrated to only subjects that are popular or of worldwide media concern/coverage. information however is NOT limited to only what everyone knows, and a site like wikipedia should not be harmed that it cannot provide information on little thing that may be hard to find information anywhere else in this, what is it called? oh yes, the "Information Age". shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article now establishes notability. Thanks go to webwarlock, rray and others. Good job! Hobit (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article well referenced, well written and shows notability. The nominator and his sidekick are clearly out of their depth here--they make glaring factual mistakes in their statements and, which is more troubling, refuse to be corrected--the assumption of good will can only stretch so far. Freederick (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have added a new reference today. This one was published on Tuesday, yes it is from Wizards, but it points to notability since the books talks about how they are using the Death Knight (complete with new art) in the new 4th Edition game. If the sales of the 3rd edition are any indication, then we can expect that nearly 3 million copies of the book with the new Death Knight (the Monster Manual) will be sold. I recommend that with this latest information, the article edits, the fact that the original AfD did not adequately address the article, and the overwhelming number of keep votes that this be upgraded to Snowball Keep. Web Warlock (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have two votes for delete (including the nom), one "rework", and fourteen keeps. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. BOZ (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The outcomes of AFDs are not determined by a vote count. An AFD with a deletion nomination rooted in policy and 20 keep votes that were against policy would be (properly) closed as delete. I'm not saying there isn't consensus to keep here, just saying that it doesn't come from sheer numbers. Pagrashtak 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I focused on the research, citations, and edits first and votes last. Web Warlock (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was directed to BOZ. Pagrashtak 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Web Warlock (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, several of the Keep votes came as a result of WebWarlock's tireless efforts. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tireless then why am I so sleepy? ;) Thanks everyone else as well! I am just glad to help. Web Warlock (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you did—good work WW. Pagrashtak 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus to delete/Keep--JForget 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7610

edit
Nokia 7610 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cellular phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to support a Wikipedia article that itself is not an advert or a review. Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although I agree with the nom somewhat, we've treated every other phone model as though it is deserving of its own entry. I don't see why this would be deleted while all of the others would remain. -- Kevin (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources - we got 'em: Google News. Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a cell phone catalog. The argument by Kevin that all other cell phone articles have been kept is just plain wrong, since several have been deleted. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Colonel, please identify which of the Google News items are your proposal as substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. This seems to be the best approach for proponents of the article to demonstrate its notability, and many of the news items seem to be reprints of the manufacturer's press release introducing its release, or websites of unknown reliability. Just throwing out a Google search is less convincing. Please specify the ones you feel best prove notability. Then it would be great if you would add them to the article as inline cites. Then I would consider changing my "vote." Edison (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 1730 hits in that list and they are all from Google News which indicates a good level of notability. I skimmed it to determine that there was some substantial coverage - reviews and the like. Fixing up the article is not my job nor is there any time pressure to do so because we have no deadline. In such circumstances, where the content is harmless and uncontroversial, the article can be left with appropriate tags indefinitely. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a stick to try and force editors to do your bidding. Per good folk wisdom, if you want a job doing properly, you have to do it yourself. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources appear to be of low quality. At least indicate, here, links to several you like: reliable sources with substantial coverage (not regurgitation of a press release, not a blog where anonymous users talk about the phones). That is not too much to ask. A number like 1730 Google News hits, by itself, does not prove notability. Edison (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This link leads to a preview of an unreleased product. This compromises the review: maybe the reviewer didn't have a final version of the product, or the firmware, or software, or both. Maybe some accessories weren't available, or not. Maybe the vendor didn't even let them play with it in any real way (or not). This review blurts out a bunch of specs, as if it's quoting from a press release, and is only 346 words long. It offers no insight into why the product is any better than any cell phone; in other words, it completely underscores why cellular phones aren't notable. The reviewer even says that it's "Yet another Series 60 phone".
If we rely on such references to build articles, we'll end up with nothing more than reviews and press releases right here in the encyclopedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N guideline is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AFAIC, this first hit meets most of this criterion. We just need a second such source as confirmation and we're done. I've looked ahead and find there to be several more. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine that "Infosynchworld" is a reliable and independent source? It has an Alexa rating below 21,000, and appears to have blurbs on lots of cell phones. Is it recognized as an authoritative source? Just that plus "a second such source" might not be sufficient. Has it been written up with substantial coverage in the print media? Edison (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what they say about themselves. Seems ok to me. Some way down that long list of other news sources is The Guardian - a print newspaper. This was so notorious for its misprints that it is lampooned as the Grauniad. There are no guarantees from any sources but perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infosynch says "In addition to the latest tech news, we also keep an exhaustive database that includes just about every cell phone on the market." Is this reference part of that "exhaustive database?" If so then it does not show that this model is more notable than the least notable one on the market: they would both be covered. Edison (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete since there is lack of reliable sources to back up the notability of this school. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John Mary International School

edit
Saint John Mary International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn school, fails WP:V obvious promotional, very few googles, the only thing I got were wikipedia, the school website and a mirror, prod removed Delete Secret account 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete/Redirect --JForget 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria community technology school

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

NN school, doesn't really tell where it is, no salvageable content, prod removed Delete Secret account 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm the one who contested the prod, on the basis that high school deletions are always controversial, so the WP:PROD process shouldn't be used. I haven't yet done the research to be able to comment whether this school should be regarded as one of the very few high schools which are non-notable, but for now I would like to dispute the statement that it "doesn't really tell where it is". Just read the article and you'll see very precisely where it is. If you don't know where Crewe or Cheshire are then you can very easily look them up in any encyclopedia. Maybe that's too difficult so I'll link them for you so you only have to do one click. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a former high school in Crewe, Cheshire. Its successor school has an article (Sir William Stanier Community School), which I have started cleaning up. I'm inclined to merge what can be verified into history. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Islands

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

Pokemon is cool, but this article is an un-notable in-universe plot repetition with no reliable sourcing, and as such is already covered in the setting and plot sections of the various articles on Pokemon stories. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason it is being nominated, it is nominated for a lack of notability which means there are no sources to add. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if that is true, I look foreword to seeing some links posted on this page to show that that is true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evidently a major ongoing location within a major television series. If there's an issue regarding real-world sourcing, etc., that can be handled at the article level. I might suggest, however, renaming the article to Orange Islands (Pokemon) just to prevent any possible confusion. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Articles lacking sources from July 2006" ← It seems far from evident that the article can be sourced independently and, in its current state, also fails WP:NOR. I could have deleted under that policy alone (nevermind the in-universe treatment of the subject), but I wanted to give editors a chance to remedy the problems. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the time I stay out of the fictitious places debates, but as a main setting for a universe as popular as Pokemon is, I think this one definitely meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Holtz

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

Unsucessful political candidate, self-published author and blogger. Entirely non-notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to TVXQ. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiah Junsu

edit
Xiah Junsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. Page contains unnecessary things.
  2. It is basically a copy text from TVXQ.
  3. Xiah Junsu hasn't done enough solo activities to have his own page yet. Too peachy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is kinda unnecessary to have this page created for him in the first place. Fans these days...206.40.103.115 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City University Students Union

edit
City University Students Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed by the author [41]. So I nominated here for AfD based on mostly the following reason: A non-notable student club per WP:NOTE, because there's no single reliable secondary source given. The author also violates WP:COI, but this does not warrant a deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentastar Alignment

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

In-universe plot summary with no assertion of notability or even context for non-fans. --EEMIV (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources, so that would be a start. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because a more generally understandable article can be written since there are sources. As is, just as EEMIV says, it takes an expert to figure it out. DGG (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm certainly not an expert here, but I did find an article on the topic from 1994. Really I don't have a clue how important the topic is, but it does seem sourced. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have mentioned I added the source. It is an entire article on the topic. I don't have access to the article, but I'm still guessing that what looks like a ~15 page article in a published magazine is a reasonable source. But I honestly don't know, thus the weak keep. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Blastside

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

Non-notable fictional character. Multiple issues with this article; fails WP:FICT in no available reliable sources, and I don't think it's own article is necessary due to the lack of content to put into it; 22Art+Blastside%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2dx&start=40&sa=N Google search for "Art Blastside" turns up nothing but book buying sites, minor mentions on sci-fi sites, a bunch of noticeboards and some user reviews. Any information can be included in the main article (The Piratica Series). Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that not every minor detail need be included about a character. All you're looking to do is summarize the major impacts the character has had on the series. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even its main article, The Piratica Series (never heard of it), establishes no kind of notability, so getting detailed about characters is completely the wrong direction. Allow userfying/transwiki for interested parties. – sgeureka t•c 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't meet WP:FICT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal. A merge tag should be placed on the article, and a merge proposal posted on its talk page. I posted some messages on the article's talk page with some links to sources I found, and the admin trialsanderrors deleted the whole talk page, calling it "clean up". I even provided a link to an interview with the author of the book in which she discusses her inspiration for the character. I never heard of a talk page with message posts about sources on it being CSD'd. Have you? I would appreciate it if my posts were restored. The Transhumanist 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify; are you voting keep because you believe the proposal was poorly worded? I've reworded it, so I think it should convey what I mean. Also, please list the sources here, as is proper AfD procedure, so that other users can consider them. Thanks! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page restored. The link there hardly help in referencing the article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your reworded nomination, you've suggested the precise procedure for a merge. It's still a merge proposal. This is starting to look like forum shopping. It is inappropriate to post merge proposals at AfD. The Transhumanist 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reworded one more time. I'll just make a suggestion to the author, directly, instead of doing it through the nomination paragraph. Sorry if any confusion arose because of this. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another name for this character is "Piratica". A major theme of the first book is about Art Blastside assuming the name, which initially belonged to her mother. So, if the names of the stories (the book titles) are notable, then the character has to be notable, because her name is in the titles. For example, if "Harry Potter and the Beanstalk" and "Harry Potter the Giant Killer" were the names of notable stories, then "Harry Potter" would unavoidably be a notable character. The Transhumanist 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, Piratica is a title, not a name. Also, how does the book's plot prove notability out-of-universe? We need external, verifiable sources. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a name, like "Robin Hood". In the story, Piratica was initially Art's mother's stage name. Art adopted it as her own pirate name. Street names, stage names, nick names, pirate names, are all still names. She is known throughout the land and across the seas as Piratica. That's who she is. "King Henry VIII" is a name, whether it is a title or not. The Transhumanist 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation! I still don't see how that indicates notability outside the universe, though... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of melee weapons in the Star Wars universe

edit
List of melee weapons in the Star Wars universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In-universe plot summary and trivia. Only one item here has any real-world notability, and it already has its own article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's why I said "Lack of notability" as the reason to delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm familiar with those sort of books (I feel like I have a few in my basement at home), and in this case I support keeping and improving over deletion, per MoP above. Also it looks like the article has three source books as of right now, which I consider sufficient for real-world notability of this topic. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being mentioned in a sourcebook does not establish notability. Please see WP:WAF. All the sourcebooks do is provide in-universe plot summary and trivia; there is no substantiation about how these weapons were developed (in the real world, that is) or critical response. I suspect these weapons are so non-notable that there is no sort of critical response out there to cite; this is an unencyclopedic topic. --EEMIV (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep following Frank's argument about sourcing. But if he has the books, perhaps he can now quickly add the references. This sort of combination article is the desirable way to deal with these topics--rather than the fancruft practice of having an article on each. This is the way to do it. DGG (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll look around and see how many pages there are; if there isn't too much, I'll create one article. If there's a lot, how does creating List of weapons in the Star Wars universe A-P and List of weapons in the Star Wars universe Q-Z sound? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to approach Star Wars weapons is to have a "weapons in Star Wars", citing some weapons (vibroblades, blasters, etc) as examples. We'd probably have subarticles for blasters, lightsabers, and any others with a lot of real-world info. — Deckiller 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this article and List of ranged weapons in the Star Wars universe? Just throwing out ideas. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus due to the issue of notability real-life/world in which it is split in this debate.--JForget 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of products in The Simpsons

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

This list is a mess and has so many problems that the only sensible thing would be to delete it entirely. Almost the entire thing is in-universe cruft and the out-of-universe stuff can be found in other articles. The story about the real Duff beer can found in Duff Beer (The Simpsons) and the 7-Eleven Kwik-E-Mart promotion can be found in Kwik-E-Mart. This article only uses the show itself as source and much of it can be described as original research. Maitch (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about things like Krusty-Os, Buzz Cola and Squishees which have been sold as real world products? -- Scorpion0422 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz Cola and Squishees was part of Kwik-E-Mart#7-Eleven promotion and can be found there. Krusty-Os could be moved to Krusty's page. --Maitch (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately at the moment the article is only sourced to other episodes of The Simpsons. If there were some noticeable effort at secondary sourcing, that would go a long way towards establishing some modicum of notability. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - the products that have any real-world notability already have articles, and any that don't can be merged into other more appropriate articles. The in-universe problems for the rest appear insurmountable. Otto4711 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not entirely true, because products like Squishees, Buzz Cola and Krusty Os have been sold as real world products, but don't really need their own page and have been in too many episodes to go any specific page. Perhaps the Kwik-E-Mart page, but that is not the products only claim to notability. -- Scorpion0422 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Otto notes, those items with real world notability already have their own articles, and th rest is just fancruft and in-universe details. I tagged the article for notability and unencyclopedic concerns almost a month ago, and no one has done any significant work to address the concerns (or even refuted them). Collectonian (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No skittlebrau? Delete. Lugnuts (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of secondary sourcing for this topic. The article presents a synthesis of primary sources to give the false appearance of an actual topic. Even if there was some secondary coverage existed about any of the products, it should be covered in the main TV show article instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it were an indiscriminate list of names, I'd say "delete", But the article arguably does have some real-world relevance, in that these items are a commentary on the advertising of actual products; thus, Laramie cigarettes are a commentary on Marlboros; Buzz Cola a parody of Jolt Cola, Pepsi and any other cola whose advertising is satirized; Malibu Stacy is Barbie, etc. Since they can't directly make a put-down of the product of a television advertiser, these surrogates accomplish the purpose indirectly. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most (all?) of the products you mention have articles already and so any verifiable information about their commentary on existing products should be there. If there is reliable sourcing establishing the notability of the Simpsons' parodying of products as a concept then it should have its own article along the lines of the religion and politics articles (although I note that those articles suffer from sourcing issues themselves). Otto4711 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hard to say why, but I guess I feel many products have had a lasting and important impact on the show, and this is a nice place for them to be. Where is Laramie Cigarettes or the others supposed to go? Most of them don't have a page they could be incorporated into. Rhino131 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the products have been sold as real world items, and that right there is notability. I'll add some sources -- Scorpion0422 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really should take the time to look things up before you comment. The only item with a page is Duff Beer. Squishees, Krusty Os and Buzz Cola have all been sold as items and don't have their own pages. That right there is real world info. Not to mention that several of these items, including Laramie Cigarettes, have been analyzed in books. -- Scorpion0422 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's all fan-cruft and not notable in real-life. Martarius (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. It would be cruft if we included EVERY SINGLE item, but we only include major ones. And some of them ARE notable in real life because they've been sold as products. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how do we determine what item is major? If the article isn't deleted, all items that lack secondary sourcing should be excluded. We can't purport to say that a particular item is major when it's not substantiated independently. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, as of now everything on the list has either been sold in real life or has been featured multiple times during the show. I would say those, and any others which meet one or both of those, are major. Rhino131 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all the products mentioned are satire of modern day prodcuts and are used quite frequently in the show. So much, that in their own way they are like minor characters (there is a list of List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, so this page is just like that page only with products) The nominator claims that the page is is a mess and has so many problems that the only sensible thing would be to delete it entirely. In reality, just because a page is not written well does not mean it has to be deleted. Rather, improve it. Many such lists were previously unorganized and messy, but improved so they are good lists. See List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people for proof, is it perfect? No, but it is decent, and much better than the previous version and should certainly not be deleted, neither should this page. 11kowrom 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
    • Actually, the reason why I nominated this is list is because I believe it to be beyond repair. Scorpion has added some references for the stuff you can find elsewhere, but that is about as far as you can take this list. I dare you to find any reliable sources containing out-of-universe stuff. I certainly can't. If I could I would not have nominated this list. --Maitch (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is of course an alternative, which is to delete anything that doesn't have any cited out-of-universe stuff. This means keep Buzz Cola, Duff Beer, Krusty-O's, Radioactive Man Comics and Squishee and delete Canyonero, Malibu Stacy, Krusty Burger, Laramie, "Li'l Bastard" products, Playdude, The Springfield Shopper. This of course will result in a rather incomplete list. --Maitch (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm kinda blocked indefinately I don't suppose there's any point voting as it won't count, but I happened to check my old user page and see this was here. Just as a point of information, I think it's worth noting that this article was created as an amalgamation of smaller even more fan-crufty articles on Buzz Cola and Laramie Cigarettes; I felt that this article compromised between removing them all and having lots of slightly-embarassing-that-they're-on-Wikipedia articles. Perhaps rename it List of reocurring products in The Simpsons and treat it as a character page, a la Van Houten family or something like that? The editor formerly known as Robdurbar 129.234.4.10 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the items on this list have no assertion of real-world notability. Those that do (i.e. have actually been sold in real life) are essentially already covered at Kwik-E-Mart#7-Eleven promotion. Nothing on this list is notable enough to have an article in its own right, and the collection of them together certainly isn't any more notable, so I support deletion. Terraxos (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP What's the harm? It's a reasonably good article. The products mentioned are major artifacts of the most significant cartoon in television history. Why WOULD there be any reference to anything besides the Simpsons? That's nonsensical. Apply an appropriate standard. I found this article by Googling Canyonero, so it's been of its intended use to at least one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • using the argument "It's not useful" is not a valid argument, see WP:USEFUL. The reason the article is notable is because it mentions items that would not be mentioned in as much detail as they would be elsewhere. 11kowrom 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McFarland

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

Media bio lacking verifiable sources. Has not had a significant role in a notable film, a large fan base, or made a special contribution to his field. He seems associated with some notable people, but it doesn't transfer. MBisanz 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Horgan

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

Subject does not assert notability under WP:BIO criteria for notability Athletes/etc. Subject is a PE teacher who is parttime coach to an amateur soccer team that play in a regional league. (Team possibly notable. Mr. Horgan possibly not.) No additional assertions of notability under WP:BIO offered since {{Notability|biographies}} tag was applied in December 2007.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and redirect (a form of keep) this action should be undertaken by interested editors, and is not being done by the closing admin. JERRY talk contribs 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Berenstain Bears Visit the Dentist

edit
The Berenstain Bears Visit the Dentist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't often advocate the wholesale deleting of articles, but there is no merit to this article. There's no assertion of notability. No references. All there is is a plot summary of a picture book.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons (which apply identically):

The Berenstain Bears Meet Santa Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and Too Much Junk Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears Learn About Strangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the Slumber Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the Trouble with Grownups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears' New Neighbors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears Count Their Blessings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the Homework Hassle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the Excuse Note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears Go up and Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the New Girl in Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears Gotta Dance! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears and the Nerdy Nephew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Berenstain Bears' Media Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— maestrosync talk&contribs, 13:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slackcountry

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

I created this article and it was proposed for deletion. I understand that without good sources it appears as nothing more than a neologism. I am listing it for AfD because I wish the deletion to be discussed. The term slackcountry is quite common among skiers but it's hard to find online sources other than forum discussions. Here are a few possible options alternative to deletion:

  • Add sources (more reputable than online forums) to the article and keep
  • Merge into backcountry skiing along with other terms such as "frontcountry" and "sidecountry".

Billscottbob (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Backcountry skiing. A Newsbank.com search (they claim to have 1,900 sources) came up with nothing related to skiing, although a couple of reviews of country music (Chicago Tribune, Des Moines Register) used "slack country" (two words) in the context of country music connected to slackers. Noroton (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not TV Guide. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Schedule

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

Contested PROD. Doesn't quite meet criteria for speedy deletion but this unformatted listing of Nickelodeon broadcasts clearly violates WP:DIRECTORY. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Looks like a direct copy'n'paste from a tv schedule that messed up the tables in the process of pasting, I'd just speedy it as a copyvio. Either way, like you said, this sort of info doesn't belong here. EditorInTheRye (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep all). Editors may merge and redirect as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns

edit
AfDs for this article:
PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For reasons enumerated here and here. This whole ball of wax is ridiculously synthetic and too subjective to have encyclopedic merit. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are created with the same subjective standards as the first:

PWI's list of wrestling World Tag Team Title reigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns by length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Additional comment: to preempt anyone bringing up the issue of WWE publishing Ric Flair winning "PWI Wrestler Of The Year" 20 years ago on a DVD - if WWE recognises PWI as an authority then how come WWE doesn't recognise the TNA World Title? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In wrestling, major companies generally don't recognize other companies in a positive way. WWE rarely even mentions other wrestling organizations (even its own farm territories). TJ Spyke 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles don't claim these are the official world titles, just that these are the titles with world title status from PWI. I don't see how this is any different that having an article on what Rolling Stone thinks are the best songs of all time. The sources are PWI magazine itself. I haven't subscribed to PWI in a few years (although I still glance through it when I am at a store that sells it), but I used to subscribe. TJ Spyke 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that Wikipedia maintains an article called Greatest Songs Of All Time with a disclaimer at the top saying "Rolling Stone say they're the best and I agree so now it's official!"ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a difference of perspective, I suppose. What is the intent of creating an article like Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time? To document that list. End of story. What is the purpose of creating List of Number of World Title Reigns, a forerunner to the article in this AFD? To document how many times someone has held a "world title" in wrestling. Well, that's all well and good, but through specifying what a "world title" is and is not, we find that we have to treat the word of a single magazine, susceptible (as anything would be) to biases, with a sort of odd dogmatic reverence. That's not the Wikipedia I know. When we come to the point where we're being ridiculously restrictive over who and what goes in the articles (Adam Pearce? Out! Sandman? One out of five!) it's further reinforcing that we're treating one source like absolute fact. What is the point of documenting how many times someone won a belt at times when PWI called it a world title? That's an honest question. Two more things come to mind, and those are Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Pearce isn't listed because the NWA Title lost world title status when it ended its relationship with TNA (since now the title is back to being defended in indy feds who rarely have more than a couple hundred people at their events and now aired on TV), The Sandman only has 1 listed because PWI didn't give the ECW Title world title status until August 1999 and did not retroactively give that status to previous champions. PWi is usally considered (not always, but usually) as the definitive wrestling magazine partially since it has been around for almost 30 years (this marks the 30th year IIRC). It's a well-respected and popular magazine, in my opinion it's worth nothing who has won what they recognize as world titles. TJ Spyke 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you're going to have to start providing proof that PWI is, as you repeatedly refer to it, a "definitive source/authority", or even that it is "well-respected and popular". At the moment that is POV and/or WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:SNOWBALL, and article's author indefblocked, as all their recent edits were systematic vandalism, and earlier warnings and blocks failed to have any effect. -- The Anome (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James parkhouse

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

This is a silly hoax - look at "height 7.4 ft" and "spouse: Yoko Ono" - and has already been deleted once. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus actually no valid arguments were made on either side. (Default keep). AfD is the wrong venue to discuss article content or proper article name. JERRY talk contribs 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff

edit
Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Premise for the article is innacurate, the system in Cardiff while having some BRT features in common with many towns in the UK, it is not a BRT system compared to those in the List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:So how or what many BRT features are needed to be classed as a BRT system? If this is the case, I can see other BRT systems that do not necessarily meet the criteria such as the one in Swansea Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this brochure from brt.org, under "brt should have", off highway running (i.e. busway), optionally guided, is listed first. In this fact sheet, exclusive running is also listed as the first requirement. At the end of the day, looking at these documents, and all the other systems in the UK, the exclusive running requirement looks to be mandatory, as all other features more or less can be seen on normal bus systems around the country, which are never refered to as rapid transit. Coupled with the fact as someone already pointed out, googling bus rapid transit and cardiff produces zero results, as opposed to Swansea. MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Google. Can you then explain what features of the Swansea or Gateshead/Metro Centre systems make them BRT that Cardiff doesn't have? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - this is one of the few non-negotiables policies we have. The lack of any relevant results on Google for what would in theory be a fairly massive project initiated within the last 10 years is a fairly sure sign that the article represents novel synthesis. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swansea uses FTR vehicles, off bus ticketing, traffic signal priority, and 'stations'. Gateshead uses a busway (not a bus lane). MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in Cardiff is pretty light on bus information and could probably be better used as a starting point for a general article of that nature. With the BRT references removed, the current content would be better situated in Cardiff Bus. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Transport in Cardiff and rewrite. The intention was to create a bus rapid transit system of sorts but in reality this has not happened due to opposition from residents of the streets where bus lanes were to be introduced. Plus, for other reasons mentioned like the design of the buses and ticketing, the premise of the title Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff would be confusing since it does not currently exist in reality. Tommy874 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Many of the arguments to keep are grounded in non-policy, such as a dislike for the nominator, and do not address the concerns expressed in the deletion rationale. east.718 at 00:52, January 20, 2008

Jawahar Shah

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

No references from reliable sources. Pioneer University appears to be this. Hardly a major institution. The article claims he designed "Hompath", if this is the Hompath he's talking about, then his contribution is being, at the least, greatly exagerated. Hence, non-notable, delete. Adam Cuerden talk 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So keeping an article because you don't like an editor overrides it's inherent lack of notability? - bodes well for the future of Wikipedia... Shot info (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stronger argument would focus on the merit of the claim, rather than on opinions of the claimant. Antelan talk 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, the article needs work, but with less than 20 content edits, it is merely a baby. I did a Google search on the subject and it pulled back several thousand relevant results including information on his published works (research, software, books, tapes, etc.). Notability is all but established; thus no reason to delete. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise there's several people with that name, right? Adam Cuerden talk 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that. I made sure to discriminate between say the restauranteur and the homeopath. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now, because it is likely that there will be better sources. It isn't right to delete new stubs which people are working on and which promise to have enough sources in the end. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I can see extending some latitude to new stubs, this article has been in existence for about 7 months, which is more than enough time that we can reasonably ask for good sources. MastCell Talk 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly this particular homeopath is not notable. I would be more inclined to say we should have an article about him if he had received a bit more mainstream attention. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic rationalism

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

The creator admits to creating this article after reading the term on Facebook. They googled it, found one source containing original research, then put this article up. The only source for this article reads, "which might be called theistic rationalism". Delete, per WP:OR. Zenwhat (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not an established philosophical term; the only source cited treats the term as a nonce-word. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has 227,000 Google hits, well beyond the "one blog" rationale cited. One can find at least one book which discuss the topic. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The first few pages of Ghits seem to be from right-wing blogs citing the essay that's referenced in the article already... Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Penguin seems to be misusing search engines. Hits by themselves can't determine the factual content of the term. See WP:GOOGLE. Zenwhat (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I added the book link as an example. Read the whole comment, not just the part you disagree with. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is WP:OR also. "Rick James" is not a professional reviewer, just a guy that signed up for Amazon.com. You can do it too. He uses the term "rationalistic" as an adjective to describe an original thesis on theism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make the review OR, not the book, which a term you're misapplying in either case. OR applies to editors, not outside reviews. Those are considered unreliable, which is different. If you do not understand these terms, then please do not use them. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment.' The "227,000" hits is from a Google search without quotes, i.e, a search for both words wherever they appear in a webpage. If you search for the phrase "theistic rationalism" there are only 668 hits, but there are 36 hits for the phrase under Google books. I have not attempted to analyze those hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarleyKatz (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, but by using "ism" alone, you automatically reduce possible hits where there would be helpful ones. Still, the article has sources now, so it's a bit of a moot point. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without even reading the article, I can picture what the concept is. As a matter of fact, now that I've heard the term, I might use it to refer to my own beliefs, but in Wikipedia terms that would be OR. The real question is, are there enough people talking about theistic rationalism to warrant an article? Is there even a standardized definition for that? Right now, I have to say no, but I have no prejudice against a future recreation of the article should the theologians agree on a definition. As far as the article itself goes, it is too vague to stay. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I love when deletion rationales start with "Without even reading the article..." Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Blanchardb. Brusegadi (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded the article, added references, and formatted it appropriately. It could still stand to be expanded further, as it remains a stub, but I believe it now meets our requirements for inclusion. The concern over WP:OR has been addressed with the citation of two books on theology which discuss Theistic rationalism specifically, as well as two other articles. Theistic rationalism now meets our requirements of verifiability, it is written in a neutral manner, and it does not contain any original research (all claims are reliably sourced). Check, check, and check: keep. - auburnpilot talk 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    auburnpilot, the two links you added still appear to be WP:OR. Whether or not a certain belief system is "rational" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. That's why a person can simply glance at the title and see it's inappropriate. With that said, I would support a redirect to Deism, since that's what the sources appear to be referring to. The claim that there is "Theistic rationalism" apart from Deism appears to be original research. From the article on Deism:

    Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience.

    ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As has already been explained to you, WP:OR does not apply to sources. It is a policy prohibiting editors at Wikipedia from injecting their own personal knowledge/experiences as fact. WP:OR prohibits unpublished facts; these are published. Please, I beg you, actually read policies and guidelines before referencing them. I have yet to see you apply a policy correctly. - auburnpilot talk 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    auburnpilot, WP:OR indirectly applies to sources if editors are gathering them to support original research. I.E., I could find all kinds of reliable, verifiable sources to support your beliefs that Christianity is evil, that Minarchism or Market Anarchism is feasible, and that Ron Paul is a viable political candidate. That wouldn't, however, reflect the mainstream and would thus violate WP:FRINGE. As an administrator, I hope you are aware of this. Per WP:NPOV, if there are more reliable sources that make one claim as opposed to another, the former claim should be upheld and the latter claim should not even be mentioned unless there are enough sources to support it to make there be a notable dispute. You can't "fish for sources" in order to push a particular POV. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not. You think it does, but you also think SPA applies to long term editors, and you're no more right there than you are here. The fact remains that the sources provided are reliable, and you've said nothing that proves otherwise. All you're doing is attacking auburnpilot for making an effort, while making no effort of your own. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. - Headwes (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Deism per Zenwhat. Thanks to auburnpilot for expanding the article, but the additional references don't seem to assert the _independent_ notability of the term; it seems to be mainly used for the religious beliefs of Madison, Jefferson, et al, rather than in any more generic sense. This is a similar situation to the distinction (or lack of the same) between Theistic evolution and Evolutionary creationism; two different terms as a matter of language which once had separate articles, but are now regarded as insufficiently distinct in practice. Tevildo (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably could be convinced this topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article, and a merge and redirect may be the best alternative. - auburnpilot talk 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article includes several references, so not sure what the problem is here. AFD isn't for cleanup. Article needs improvement and expansion, not to be deleted. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate sourcing. It certainly describes Jefferson, and possibly the others mentioned. DGG (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AuburnPilot, did you read any of the sources you used?

About the adequate sourcing:

  • The Claremont Institute Similarly, while Franklin and Jefferson are regularly listed as deists, they did not believe in the fundamental tenets of deism. The key founders shared a common belief which might be called theistic rationalism. The first sentence acknowledges this is a fringe assertion. The second sentence is speculatory.
  • Systematic Theology by Henry Clarence Thiessen. In the beginning of the book, it states that it's a theology text written in 1949 and re-published in 1979, used in theology courses. That's a little bit old and, considering the culture of America during the 50's, 60's, and 70's, I think we can safely say that theology texts back then were probably pretty poor. Today, this text doesn't seem to be used by any universities, though it is occasionally cited in academic journals and sold on lots of Christian websites.

The text isn't on page 17 (what Auburn's using) isn't available on Google (though you can get some of it through creative searches for certain sentences), so unless he owns this book, this source hasn't been verified and his actions violate WP:GOOGLE. I did some digging on Google and from what I've gathered, the text reads:

During the course of history there have appeared three types of rationalism: atheistic, pantheistic, and theistic. Atheistic rationalism appeared first in the early Greek philosophers: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Leucippus, and Democritus." Pantheistic rationalism is represented in Anaxagoras and the Stoics, and theistic rationalism ... (can't get anymore of the text than that)

Despite the book's usage, the idea that rationalism ought to be divided along religious grounds is clearly speculatory. Many of those listed as "atheistic" rationalists were themselves pantheists. My own college textbooks on philosophy and logic do not mention such a division. Neither does Wikipedia's article on Rationalism and though Wikipedia can't be used to source itself, it is something sometimes worth considering during verification.

  • George W. Bush's biography - Biographies are often suspect, particularly political ones. See the Oprah controversy a while back and also criticism of George Tenet's biography. Biographies are generally quasi-fictional, in that they'll be lazy with the facts in order to paint a particular story.

On page 25, it notes that George Washington and the Founding Fathers were Deists. It then says, "Perhaps a better for label for what Washington and other like-minded founders believed is theistic rationalism." Again, clearly speculatory.

Now, the last source: It's a self-published column by Gary Smith on an advocacy group's website. The sentence cited:

I conclude therefore that Washington’s faith is better explained by the label “theistic rationalism” than by deism, Unitarianism, or Christianity.

That's Gary Smith's opinion and it may be true, but it isn't a verifiable fact and his assertions there again suggest that "theistic rationalism" isn't a widely-used term. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read through everything you've written above, but I have read the sources and I haven't misquoted anything. The book is available for you to verify if you'd like, but do not remove sources from this article, simply because you cannot very its contents through a google search. That is unacceptable. - auburnpilot talk 05:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not trying to decide what was jefferson's religion and what the best name for it would be. We are trying to decide if the name of a very broad religious movement definition actually has been applied to real people in academic works, and is thus notable. Quite a number of religious movements could -- and do -- claim these figures as representatives. The neocons even consider them all protestant Christians, as I understand it. DGG (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, the existence of a term in academic works does not imply notability. Many academic sources still contain fringe theories. As noted above, 1 of the 4 sources above contains a contentious claim about rationalism, the other 3 are self-admittedly speculatory! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You guys should put substantive discussion about content on the article talk page, then point out improvements related to deletion criteria here. The talk page is empty. Tparameter (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes, but the above discussion isn't about the content of the article, it's about the notability of the term, which is relevant to AfD. Is it more than just a right-wing euphemism for "deism"? If not, it should go. Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Washington

edit
Climate change in Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article says it, its a synthesis. Brusegadi (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Zenwhat (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "This is a synthesis of information about climate change that is specific to the state of Washington. At least initially it is being edited as a Class projectat the University of Washington that focuses on environmental economics." For once the article actually does open with its own rationale for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional keep. Let me explain. First, it seems the professor of this course has set his students loose on Wikipedia without much guidance, and probably without having read Wikipedia:School and university projects. My first inclination would be for an administrator to drop him a line (e-mail available at the bottom of the course web page: http://courses.washington.edu/envir235/) referring him to that Wikipedia document and perhaps inquiring as to his goals for the article. The topic is potentially notable; the reference to "synthesis" in the lede may just be the result of inexperience on the part of the students involved, not necessarily a declaration of intent to publish original research. Considering the course is just starting, I say give them time to develop the article into something that more closely matches Wikipedia guidelines. Powers T 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Powers. You know, that's not actually a bad idea. Provided that the article ends up meeting all of the requirements of WP:RS and so forth, I think a reasonable article could be put together. The topic, if valid, would definitely be notable. If no admin is willing or able to contact the professor, I'll do it - but I'm not an admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE. Otherwise every region of the globe, large or small, would deserve an article about its climate changes, which seems absurd. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply from professor/page creator I plead 100% guilty to being relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia and to not having read (until now) Wikipedia:School and university projects, which I didn't know existed. But I plead 100% innocent to the claim of trying to create original research. By "synthesis" I simply meant (as LtPowers wrote) that we'll use reports like this one to create an entry on climate change in Washington State. Regarding Childhoodsend's comment about the absurdity of articles on regional impacts of climate change, it seems totally reasonable to me that each state (for example) could have a page on climate change. But that's just my opinion. What isn't my opinion is the issue of notability from WP:NOTE----how about these press reports? Regardless, I thank you all for your continued patience and guidance. Anyone wishing to contact me directly can email me at yoram (at) u (dot) washington (dot) edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorambauman (talk • contribs) (e-mail address obscured to defeat spam spiders -- Powers T)
  • Keep for now I'm also concerned about this leading to lots of 'Climate change in x' articles, but a large-ish and climatically diverse US state seems to be a meaningful geographical area for this kind of article and it should be possible for a university class to come up with something good. Yorambauman's post shows that there are reliable sources on this topic, including what looks like an attempt at a comprehensive government report on the impact of climate change on the state. As a suggestion, the name of the article should probably be changed to something like Climate change in Washington state for clarity. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason to delete this as of now. It is a newer article (about 10 days old) that does need some work, however we all know that is no reason to delete an article. It is encyclopedic, informative, and interesting (but that is my POV). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not OR--Paleorthid (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a good article, but not OR.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article will need a LOT of work when the students have finished with it, however that's no reason to delete it. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four (drink)

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

Malted drink that has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my opinion to a weak keep. The article needs to be expanded, however. ― LADY GALAXY 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

عائلة السيدعمر

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

Questionable notability hasn't been translated into english in 2 weeks VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because someone has transwikied it there, otherwise I would have put it up for speedy when it was left for us to deal with at WP:PNT. :) -Yupik (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend zone

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

Completely unsourced original research. No notability established, and the "no original research" policy is non-negotiable. Survived an AfD over a year ago, keeps said to cleanup and source the article and no one ever did. Can't find any reference to this in scholarly sources. Chardish (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not bad, why not keep it for reference sake? I can find no flaw here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderenzi (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's hardly "completely unsourced"; there are in fact six different sources listed. Cosmopolitan I would say is a reliable source, and probably AskMen.com as well. I agree there's a lot of original research here, but it's certainly salvageable. Powers T 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There are six different sources listed, however they may not be the best ones. I can create an article on a spinoff of psychologist fluff and dig up six primary sources. That doesn't mean anything. It's only been pointed out in several women's magazines, I would think that every single little article on spinoffs of psychological fluff that they make up would be here in an article in Wikipedia then. Why keep this one? Of the six sources, three are IGN and Askmen (those sites tend to be little more than professional forums run just by males, mind you) and TV.com. ― LADY GALAXY 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody could write a book. That still won't make it suitable for Wikipedia. I'm sure there's books on other psychological fluff that's not on Wikipedia either. ― LADY GALAXY 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At risk of sounding pretentious, I don't think Cosmo is an authority on language, or that askmen.com is an authority on anything. If we were talking about whether or not Jane Doe was a legitimate fashion designer, I think using Cosmopolitan would be a decent reference. That aside, I think it is incredible that Ladder Theory has an entry that nobody's disputing. -- Kevin (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree that it needs some serious cleanup, but that nobody has done so probably doesn't warrant deletion. - Headwes (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/Redirect to The Sydney Morning Herald. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Column 8

edit
Column 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly non-notable outside of The Sydney Morning Herald; move to merge failed to reach consensus. Jfire (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Horvath

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

Non-notable player, fails the criteria for notability in WP:HOCKEY. Low-round draftee, played only three mediocre seasons in the low minors.  RGTraynor  07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even though the ECHL is considered a pro league, it still is a "tier" below the AHL. By using that argument, you can give every ECHL player a wikipedia entry, and that would be an awful idea. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability), g11 (advertising). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telegenisys

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

Advert for a company created by user:Telegenisys. Someone claims there is an assertion of notability but I calls it spam. It has already been speedied twice. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Note: No keep !votes made valid arguments citing policy/guideline/precedent. JERRY talk contribs 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Kizashi

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

lacks notability as a concept car and violates WP:Crystal Ball as a "future" production car with no sources to back the statement/ Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (WP:SNOW); add references and cleanup. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen Windows

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

Speedy Delete Article is written like an advertisement, with many links to the companies website. Only one reference which links to a company report. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibere

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

Article feels real hoaxy. This claims to be about a constructed language, but the language it describes feels like a dialect of French. I have searched through the articles at Wikipedia on French varients (such as the Oil family and Occitan and the like) and can't find anything specific, however, a google search turns up NOTHING at all... Any ideas on this one? Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not getting what you're saying or how this article is somehow unworthy to be posted. And seeing as constructed languages are just that, it's kind of a given that it will sound "hoaxy". If you've checked and found that it's not a dialect of French, nor any other language, only one option remains. Just some thoughts. --Illa Sanguis (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website scale

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

Self-promoted neologism. The best I can determine the only person using and promoting the use of this term is the person referenced in the external links as part of a marketing campaign. Madcastle (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Music and mathematics. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normalizing the musical scale

edit
Normalizing the musical scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be entirely OR, and contains some misinformation Rracecarr (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete - Well, it might be somebody's essay or term paper, but it's really not OR. There's nothing new there that isn't covered in a thousand music or physics books. Granted, it's all unsourced, but nothing there appears to be wrong or appears to new. (The title does seem to give the impression of OR.) I just don't see anything there that we don't already cover in other pages, many of which are already in the "See Also" section. (Musical acoustics, Pitch (music), Frequency, equal temperament, Musical tuning, etc.) The bulk of this article is summed up as "frequencies increase exponentially, but we hear linearly". It's a nice article, but seems redundant.Torc2 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Having read through the article, reviewed GaulArmstrong's other edits(original author), searching for a copyvio (none found), combined with my basic understanding of the musical scale and some reading I feel that this is a truthful article that sources could be found for by an expert and I wouldn't feel confident in doing it myself. The article in question is only a few months old and should be given some time to be linked to and grow. It broaches the subject well with good pictures to demonstrate the article... hell it may even quality for a Good article if it had sources - so sources should be added. Fosnez (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of accuracy or how well written it is or Armstrong's credentials, none of which I would question. It's just a duplication of effort. The article is essentially a high-level synthesis of material found in other articles. This falls more into WP:NOT#TEXT than anything. Torc2 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not just a few months old--it's been around since November 2006, 15 months +. I think it was around even before that, was deleted and recreated, but I don't know how to find the deletion log.Rracecarr (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys with feelings

edit
Guys with feelings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in July 2007 (see diff between PROD-nominated versions) with very little difference in content between the previous and current versions. The latest PROD nominator stated "Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (ref given is a show time listing), won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring references since November 2007." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (Bon Jovi Song)

edit
I Am (Bon Jovi Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. Was nominated for speedy deletion as nonsense, but the article is clearly not nonsensical. Still, appears to be a non-notable album track. There is the mildest assertion of notability, so it shouldn't be speedied, but doesn't pass WP:BAND#Albums and songs. faithless (speak) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, no indication that it's a notable song (songs that don't even get released as a single usually aren't notable, and being "well liked among fans" doesn't matter). TJ Spyke 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree with you, I just felt that the assertion that the song supposedly is 'popular among fans' (whatever that means), at least asserted some significance, enough to warrant an AfD at least, since speedy deletion is meant for only the most obvious of situations. faithless (speak) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, author admits below that he cannot cite independent sources to show band's notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Rock (Band)

edit
Ship Rock (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Claim to fame is that they were picked up by Capital Records for a "possible album" in 2008. Article is promotional, written by a member of the band. Redfarmer (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KonsolScript

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

Self-promotional article for a scripting language created by the author (User:Creek23 aka 202.138.134.149. No references to sources not written by the author. No notability: article does not cite and Google does not find any evidence of the scripting language being used for any significant product or, in fact, anybody other than the author. Jpatokal (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

settled. 202.138.134.149 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this refers to the user having blanked the page in response to the AfD. This has been undone. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for undoing but I prefer it to be redone. Please see my post for reason on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.138.134.149&redirect=no 202.138.134.149 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. There are only two options here: either the article is kept with its content, or it's deleted entirely. Keeping blank pages does not serve any purpose. Jpatokal (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a delete button so I placed a settled for deletion note for administrators to do so. Yes, I prefer it to be deleted completely. Like I said, the whole article is a mess and editing it much further will be time-consuming -- anyway, self-published articles are not allowed in wikipedia. If I do the editing, I will keep violating the same rule. 202.138.134.149 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western film actors

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

This is the second AfD for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Western film actors result was delete. This article is recreated without including horses this time only actors. The Category:Western film actors would seem to meet any requirements of this previously deleted by AfD article Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure how many of the previous users are part of Wikipedia's film project, so I've posted a link to this debate on the talk page over there, to helpfully stimulate the debate either way. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Just delete the list -categories can serve that purpose. I only created it when it looked like the category was going up for the chop but they saved it -so no point in having both. So long as both aren't deleted ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 09:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom voting Delete and redirect to Category:Western film actors. With a major contributer to the article User:Blofeld of SPECTRE (Sir Blofeld) voting delete a speed delete per Wikipedia:CSD#G5 might be appropriate as well. Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but without the cross-space redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It requires a POV or even OR judgement call to decide who qualifies as a "western film actor" as there are many actors -- like, say, Sharon Stone -- who dabbled in the genre but are not readily considered western actors. Who to include? No, something like this is better to handle as a category. However to be fair if this list has gone to AFD, I trust that to be fair and NPOV any similar genre lists need to be deleted as well. 23skidoo (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo. There is no independent criteria for what determines a Western actor. The article's criteria for a Western actor is originally derived, so anyone could include a name based on their interpretation of what constitutes a Western film, much less a "major" one, or exaggerating a passing Western role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now THIS is an indiscriminate list that works better as a category. Yes, DeForest Kelley was a western actor before he was Dr. McCoy, but this article doesn't tell you that he was in "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral". Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thoroughly indiscriminate list. There was a time in Hollywood when just about everyone appeared in westerns. You could make a list of comedy films or films noirs and have pretty much the same group of actors. And for most of them, being in a western was hardly a defining characteristic. Bob Hope, Humphrey Bogart, Marlene Dietrich, Shirley MacLaine...even Laurel and Hdry made a (damn funny) western. hell - let's get more recent and add Gene Wilder, Kenneth Branagh, Will Smith, Catherine Zeta-Jones... and as pointed out, it takes a judgement call to say whether an actor is best known for Westerns olr anything else (I see your DeForest Kelley and raise you MASH's Harry Morgan (heh... almost typed "Harry Potter" :), Hitchcock favourite Jimmy Stewart and, well, as to Clark Gable, frankly I don't give a damn. And Marlon Brando???). Completely non-defining and indiscriminate. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was a clear consensus to keep and improve. Non-admin close. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Uzumaki

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

This article seems to be basically fancruft. IMHO, it (and the separate pages for other characters) should be deleted or merged with the main page. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Silent Film

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

Non-notable band. They might be on the border of notability, but I don't think they're here yet. They don't appear to have been signed by a label yet. Their albums appear to consist of one self-published album and one demo. No coverage in the press. The links in the article consist of text copied verbatim from the MySpace page. eaolson (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete then redirect to Kimba the White Lion. JERRY talk contribs 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jungle King

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

Contested prod, concern was: Non-notable film. No external reviews listed at imdb. Reason for removal was "distribution by sony would seem to be sufficient for at least a claim of notability". Even if one did make that (dubious) claim, it seems pretty clear that this film did not generate significant coverage in reliable sources, hence delete. Jfire (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring my formatting) Is it not clear enough from the prod concern and nomination? OK then, fails WP:N and WP:NF. Jfire (talk)
Oops, my bad. I just saw a plain "delete" with a sig, and thought that it was someone else's !vote, I didn't realize it was your "as nom" !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete both. Note: No keeps cited relevant policy/guideline/precedent. JERRY talk contribs 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian Open

edit
2009 Australian Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 Wimbledon Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No information on a page and little information available yet through a Google search. As this is still a year away and not much is known yet other than the dates and locations, suggest any information here could only be WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the dates and location? Nick mallory (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was crystal to say the event would happen next year. What would be crystal at this point is any other information on it. If other information besides the dates could be provided without speculation and OR, it would qualify for its own article. As it is, this is just a placeholder. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing else is known. How does that qualify for its own article? Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation is not a criteria for keeping an article. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2010 U.S. Senate elections, and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Predicted line-ups of sporting teams on a week-by-week basis or in future events are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. Morgan Wick (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Much more certain to happen than the 2016 Olympics. And the Wimbledon article does include significant information about changes for the 2009 tournament.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Animum, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equi-Journal - Horse Record Keeping System

edit
Equi-Journal - Horse Record Keeping System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

blatant advertisement. Macy's123 (review me) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete - author blanked the article. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar Rodrigues

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

This article is a Vanity Page! The creator, Ortogal, whose only edit was to create this page, seems to be the subject himself, Valdemar Rodrigues, since in the article his blog bears that same name. Anyhow it is way too long and detailed for someone that has no notability whatsoever. I believe it should be deleted! The Ogre (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following tag has just been placed in the page: This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7). Speedy concern: No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7). The Ogre (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G1 Patent Nonsense by Animum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forevers past

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

Can't find anything about this proposed game, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest and English Channel

edit
Mount Everest and English Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a perfect example of synthesis, which is a form of original research. It's about the heretofore little-known adventure feat of both summiting Mount Everest and swimming the English Channel, going so far as to give it a newly minted neologism, "Peak and Pond". There are no ghits for this phrase in combination with Everest and Channel that were not written by the author of this page on Wikipedia. There are no relevant hits for any combination of "Everest" and "Channel" that I could come up with--relevant in the sense that this is a recognizable adventure challenge, like the Seven Summits. There are no sources referenced on the page that mention the two activities together. The article uses the sources to make arguments and draw original conclusions, like the paragraph highlighted in this diff:[48]

The author of this article, who has climbed to the summit of Everest, is planning to swim the English Channel this summer. I wish him luck. Darkspots (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. While the completion of these twin feats is remarkable, there is nothing in the literature to indicate that the achievement of both challenges is considered notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's a pity that the three successful challengers were not given more lasting media coverage for their feat, as such references would provide grist for this article. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis and OR. Redfarmer (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate WWGB's comments. The 3 adventurers who did this were not American and completed their efforts prior to the time when newspapers we digitized (as they are today). They were widely covered, but only in local newspapers that are not on the internet now, or are in subscription databases like LexisNexis. I will have some news mentions shortly. Please postpone deletion till then.Nealmueller (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WWGB's comments, but only up to a point. Such coverage would have to show that this is a recognizable adventure goal, not just two adventure feats that these three men happened to do. As an absurd example of what I mean, I could find a guy that had summited K2 without oxygen, and also crossed the Pacific in a hot-air balloon, and call it The Gas-Free Challenge, and say he was the first person to accomplish the feat. Unless there was news coverage saying, "Adventurer completes Gas-Free Challenge!", how do we know that this challenge is generally recognized, and that this isn't simply just a case of a man tackling two different incredible feats, that need to be regarded in the context of a lifetime filled with other, equally daring escapades? Wouldn't we be better off with a biography of the individual, documenting all his accomplishments?
AfD runs for five days, so you've got plenty of time to put the sources in. Darkspots (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's damn impressive, and a great personal mission to set oneself - whoever achieves this should be proud. But it's just not a noted challenge. And the problem is, a challenge has to be noted to be a competitive challenge: if no-one else knows of it, you're not competing with anyone. It's just something you've done. Thus it screams vanity article, as anyone who's done two diverse yet difficult things could stick a name on it and make a page of it. My advice to the creators of the article is to approach some 'health and fitness'/'extreme sports' magazines, get it into the wider world that way. If the challenge got wider recognition it could be a good article, but wikipedia just isn't the place for launching new ideas (per WP:OR, WP:NOT: Crystal Ball). Good luck to both in the swim. The Zig (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1906 Auburn Tigers football team

edit
1906 Auburn Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no context for this article, just a listing of the games. There are no sources given at all. Nothing here seems worthy of a stand-alone article. Metros (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this has already been resolved in a previous discussion and does not need to be debated again. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team Seancp (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, the more I think about it, this more this nomination bothers me. The Wikipedia:Deletion policy states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." There is no doubt that the article in question is deficient, but that means it needs to be improved, not deleted. One other option is to merge the articles like we did with LSU Tigers football, 1900-1909. Seancp (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect/merge per Seancp. This has already been discussed before. WP:CFB developed a method for articles such as this which should be used. At the least, this article is still valid. MECU≈talk 14:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as idiotic garbage. DS (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementism

edit

Contested PROD. Unsourced article about a religion created in the 80's whose notability is questionable at best. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquicast

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

Non-notable article about web content. Macy's123 (review me) 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Dudamel

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

Note that I did not initiate this AfD discussion, but the AfD article was left blank. I am here copying what was on the talk page for the article from the editor who initiated the AfD. Redfarmer (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, but seems promising. Really don't think he should have a wikipedia article at this time. The competitions he's won and who he's conducted are notable, but he isn't. 138.88.60.141 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On-beat dance roller skating

edit
On-beat dance roller skating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

speedy tagged for nonsense, but it isn't really nonsense. However, there are zero google hits for this term, and the article isn't source. The creating user's name indicates a COI, as well. Corvus cornixtalk 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has been cleaned up after the speedy nomination, but its original version, as it existed before this AfD nomination, had {Introducing...} in the lead section, an almost surefire clue of WP:MADEUP. The article as it exists now is a how-to guide with zero assertion of notability. It's like the creator wants to achieve notability through a Wikipedia article rather than the other way around. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introducing the new sensation... Deleted! JuJube (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or merge with Roller skating Not only is the page badly written, formatted, and vandalized, Google brings up less than a thousand hits. It is not notable at all. If we decide to keep it — because the other articles in Articles for Deletion are just messy or unreferenced or don't meet verifiability rules while this one is really just a spin off form of roller skating — then it should be merged. ― LADY GALAXY 16:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero google hits you say? That's awful damning. Methinks this is a classic case of WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plainly a NN cut-and-paste job from another web site. No need to redirect, as it is an unlikely search term. Created by a SPA? Bearian (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (computer)

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

This was a mainframe computer at the University of Cambridge from 1971 to 1995. While the university itself and many of its former users are notable, and perhaps some notable projects were developed in whole or in part on it, I am not sure that the same can be said of the computer itself. Certainly a Google search for "MVS Phoenix" fails to turn up more than trivial coverage in reliable sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is the nominator's first edit to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a couple of sources, I will admit they are on the border of reliability, but considering the age of the device in question, it is difficult to find a heap of online sources. The computer itself seems notable as games were developed on it and it seems to have spawned a "lively" bulletin board that continues to exist today (30 + years). I have flagged the article for Rescue so we'll see how we go, but it really needs the attention of an expert from that era with sources. Fosnez (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was an early user in 1972-3. As I recall, one party trick was writing code to play tunes on the line printer. I was more impressed by the batch scheduler which had been written in-house. Anyway, the article seems good enough now. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As I understand it, and this is why I made the nomination in the first place, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is significant coverage in multiple third party sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources cited so far are by the machine's former users. In order for this article to stay it needs to establish notability by that criterion, not by how well written it is. While I can understand that it could potentially have a claim to notability, there just doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage out there to warrant it. Snthdiueoa (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Online sources for something this old will be almost impossible to find. The fact that the BBS started 30 years ago on the Phoenix is still running seems to be notable to me Fosnez (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the contrary, most notable computers from the era seem to have plenty of online coverage, but oddly enough, this one seems a bit thin on the ground to me. Most of what I can find seems to come from its fans. Still, as you say, there may be plenty of offline references (computer science journals, gaming magazines etc) -- however, we need to see these references. Snthdiueoa (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although there have been two keep nominations and some attempts to rescue the article, no-one has yet addressed my concerns about this article, namely, the deficiency of reliable sources in third party publications. A computer of this era that can really be considered notable in and of itself should have substantial coverage in plenty of third party sources, and I find it very difficult to believe that these would all be offline given that it was an Internet era computer. Snthdiueoa (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Calling it an internet era computer is a bit hard pressed... It was first turned on in 1973. When it was finially switched off for the last time in 1995, it was hardly cutting edge and "notable". It was however, notable way back in the 70s, but of course the internet was not around back then... Trying to find online articles on it would be like trying to find new articles about IBM Deep Blue written within the last year that cover the it extensivly, and not just mention it (this is just an example, even if you can find a new article on IBM Deep Blue does not invalidate the above example) Fosnez (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, early Internet era then. (Don't forget that the Internet has been around since the late sixties.) However, there is still a lot of stuff about computer science available online from that era. And here's another question: what exactly was the computer itself notable for? The Wikipedia article on the bulletin board itself was deleted a while back after a unanimous AfD and apart from that, all we have is that some games were developed on it. And the comparison with Deep Blue is even more hard pressed -- that made international headlines in the mainstream popular media. Snthdiueoa (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, the internet has been around since the 60s, but the World Wide Web has really only been around since about 1992, and not a lot exists from those early dark days (some say thankfully). I would question the "unanimous" part of the AfD of GROGGS as there was only 2 comments, and we can't see the original aricle. Deep Blue was the first computer that came to mind, unfortunatly I am too young to remember mainstream media from the 70s, so I can't comment if it was popular in that timeframe. However, from reading the article itself and the references that are infact online, I think this computer and the games produced on it would be very informative to someone doing a "history of games" type essay. Fosnez (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- WP:SNOW --Haemo (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I Revealed My Secret Identity, The World Would Go To Shit

edit
If I Revealed My Secret Identity, The World Would Go To Shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book created by non-notable authors. I wish I could have listed this for speedy deletion, but I don't know what category it would fall under. Corvus cornixtalk 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See creator's previous edits - three edits - all vandalism. IdreamofJeanie
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 then redirect to Song (airline)#Destinations. JERRY talk contribs 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song destinations

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

I'm nominating this one procedurally after the creator questioned a similar prod I put on another page on the basis that we had other destination lists for other airlines. I did some research and found out there is actually a precedent for keeping such lists (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations). The question I'd like a consensus on here is whether this precedent extends to now-defunct airlines. I'm leaning towards delete myself on the basis that all information is currently on the article Song (airline). Redfarmer (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswinds Mall

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

Another mall in Michigan that fails to assert notability. It's just a strip mall anchored by a Kroger, and the page is nothing but a list of stores. A search for sources turned up nothing except for an article which mistakenly refers to The Crossroads Mall in Portage, Michigan as "Crosswinds Mall". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Dykes

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

A disputed speedy tag; to my mind, this is a completely non-notable biographic article which contains no information about the individual beyond the fact that he partly owned a professional racing team, but perhaps there is significance that I'm not seeing so I bring it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for clarity: I declined the speedy nom because I felt that owning a NASCAR Busch Series team was a sufficient claim to notability to avoid WP:CSD#A7. Whether his involvement in this team and in NASCAR was sufficient to warrant an article on Wikipedia should be determined in this AFD. AecisBrievenbus 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand why you didn't speedy it, but being part-owner of a team that came 98th doesn't meet WP:BIO for me. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Not using the speedy option was the correct option and I commend you. We need some more restraint on speedy deletions. I see way too many articles being speedy deleted that should go through discussion. Normally I would automatically say that any Busch Series team owner should have an article, but a lousy article on a part-owner of a team that made one race causes me to comment neutral. There isn't much worth keeping. Royalbroil 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being a former "minor owner" of a team that raced for one season is not notable, no matter how well it could be written. Marontia (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per User:Marontia, though it is uncommon to encounter political scientists who also own racing cars. Google for "'Darrin Dykes' Nederland" and you get 44 hits, but all that you find is that he was a runner-up in a city council race. Nothing about racing or political science. If he had drawn a lot of attention I think this would have shown up in the Google search. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy destination

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

Crystal balling, unsourced info, thats it really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momusufan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momusufan (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - passes WP:BIO. Sources will need to be inserted properly into the article to aviod another AFD discussion. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Heart

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

Porn star bio tagged for no sources since 9/06 David in DC (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - most of the uncited claims just use the movies he has been in as the basis for the claim, which makes finding a secondary source for such a trivial claim somewhat difficult. The subject is notable, as he won the GayVN newcomer of the year award; the article needs to be touched up instead of deleted.-Todd(Talk-Contribs) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrino telecommunications

edit

Unsourced since nine months, but it is easy to find the single source, all other mentionings of this are based on: An article in 2004 New Scientist [50].

But this seems to be a hoax or the like: Neither Gamberale nor Fonta have a single scientific publication regarding neutrinos (and perhaps not a single one at all, which is a bit harder to check to me), apart from two conference papers regarding cold fusion in 2004 and 2006.

Summary: Extremely non-notable fringe science (and of course WP:BOLLOCKS).

--Pjacobi (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Lawrence Cohen 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never even heard of Neutrino telecommunications, and it is really biased and requires clean up (that is, if it stays). Google brings up a mere 22,000 hits. ― LADY GALAXY 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can you imagine a Wiki in which a single New Scientist article establishes notability? I can, and it scares me. WP:FRINGE. (The "cited" astro-ph preprint is competely unrelated to the article topic, except for the presence of "neutrino" and "laser" in the title.) Bm gub (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on fringe-ish physics (PRC is certainly mainstream, but Weber was also almost certainly wrong) with no indication with no indication of widespread impact of any sort. I do not see either of the more relevant cited paper's authors meeting WP:PROF, so no subsuming merge there. The cosmological neutrino "lasing" paper, as mentioned above, is good but only tangentially relevant. Joseph Weber is well over the notability bar, but this obituary indicates that this neutrino stuff was not a significant part of his career. Eldereft (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trochilic engine

edit

No independent, reliable sources. No books, no articles in technical or scientific journals. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fire alarm pulling

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

No, let's not pull it. That's a felony. Voortle (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Whether or not it's a felony is irrelevant. It's just not notable an activity. The article uses the term "epidemic" and then has a link to a source where it happened once. Torc2 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the original rationale is somewhat unusual. I don't see what makes this particular act (like Torc2, I agree that it's hardly an "epidemic" based on the source) notable. At a pinch, something could be merged into an article about pranks, but even then... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Wikipedia should have articles on felonies. This should join Murder, Rape, Treason, and other articles to form comprehensive coverage of illegal acts. The particulars that are in the article now, and the article history, aren't particularly relevant to deletion. Fg2 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - You know, I despise WP:OTHERSTUFF with a passion, but this is one place it's applicable. Murder, Rape, and Treason aren't included in Wikipedia just because they're felonies. They're included because they're independently notable and people care about them. When you look up the crime statistics for a city, they don't include "Murder" "Rape" "Burglary" "Assault" "Pulled Fire Alarm Pranks". There's no basis for saying a felony is notable just because it's a felony. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The statistics you have in mind are for violent crime; you're certainly right that this is not a violent crime. But at least one state legislature and governor were moved to enact a law making it a felony. That makes it noteworthy. And yes, felonies are noteworthy. Not just violent crimes. It's probably a criminal act in other states, and in some other countries too. A search for "making a false alarm" (including the quotation marks around this phrase) will yield more information. Excluding the words "probability" and "ROC" will make the search more pertinent. Adding "statutes" brings up information on Idaho, Maryland, Rhode Island and Utah. Fg2 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_14&oldid=1081074567"