Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLDoc[edit]

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

Delete unsourced 1-line article of dubious importance that has been marked orphaned for over a year now Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - not linked to anything so wont be missed. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of why this DTD is notable. A search through google has the string showing up a lot but nothing that appears to be an article actually about it. Thompson Learning is now Cengage, and a visit to their website to search for TLDoc returns no results. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Reservoir Dogs, page has been merged so should not be deleted (GFDL compliance). Fram (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Newandyke[edit]

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

Not notable outside of the film, and contains no information not germane to Reservoir Dogs, nor does it establish any meaningful real-world context. Delete and merge back to Reservoir Dogs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already three existing character pages and all the characters are slightly less notable than this one, It cannot be merged into Reservoir Dogs because its origin is not from Reservoir Dogs. True I have not established any meaningful context yet, but there is plenty and I will add it, complete with sources.--The Dominator (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If further editing answers my concerns, I will consider changing my mind. Until then, may I simply remind you that "other stuff exists" is not sufficient on its own merits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if you do decide to delete it, let me know and let me respond before deleting. If the articles are not considered notable then I'll probably create a page titled List of Reservoir Dogs Characters--The Dominator (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have final say on the matter - that's why this page exists. I would say, however, that a list of characters is only useful if it contains information that would be too superfluous for the film's article. As the current character pages exist, they generally just recapitulate the plot from that particular character's perspective, occasionally expanding the page with unsourced trivia. Pages for characters only appearing in one film (and its video game adaptation) are generally not a good idea. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think major characters in prominent films should be considered notable as they provide larger plot detail, and detail that can not be included in the film's article.--The Dominator (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read writing about fiction. As long as we can source an article, yes, but most character articles end up being mere plot summary or worse, original research. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orange is just as notable as the others, he had a twenty minute flashback sequence and the long car trip to the warehouse at the beginning. And I wouldn't move to Mr. Orange for the sake of consistency.--The Dominator (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's just as much, if not, the most notable character in the film. Of course it's bad now, it was made yesterday, what do you expect? This article is pretty good considering the fact that only 2 people have worked on it in a day. Don't rush to conclusions, give it time. Soon more people will edit it. I also created the idea of there being a list of characters, so if you want to dicuss that, dicuss that with me.Italian Robot (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every film will have their notable characters, but they are still only notable within the boundaries of the film. If there was a prequel, then character articles may be appropriate as the characters transcend a single topic. Actors and the characters they play should be covered in detail within the context of the film, for which there is an article that can potentially be developed further. A list of characters doesn't mesh with this approach; why can you not transform Reservoir Dogs#Cast into something similar, with brief character descriptions and real-world context about the actors and their roles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fictional characters in successful movies, tv-series and theater acts are generally notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has a considerable amount of info now, so I'll remove the tag if nobody objects within 24 hours.--The Dominator (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's not how AfD is closed. Second of all, I still have objections - none of the references are acceptable per WP:RS. And the main complaint, as before, is WP:MERGE, specifically points 2, 3, and 4 (Overlap, Text, and Context). The character page does not enlarge the subject in any significant way beyond the text of the film's page, and being as the character has only existed in one film, it is unlikely that this has the ability to change under the current circumstances. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply an opinion. I like it, and many people feel the same way. Mabey it is'nt needed, but we might as well keep it. The tag should be removed.Italian Robot (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy No claim of notability. No reliable sources so I am wary of a merge. I realize the article is new, but a new article should have more good content than this. – sgeureka t•c 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION, most of the keep sites has no policy based reasoning. Secret account 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a better idea: I'm going to create List of Reservoir Dogs characters, using info from these articles: Mr. Pink, Mr. Orange, Lawrence Dimmick and Vic Vega. I'll make sure that the article doesn't merely recap the plot and I'll limit all the unsourced trivia. Once you see that I have created the page please tag all of the articles I mentioned for speedy deletion. I'll wait a while in case there are any objections.--The Dominator (talk) 17:20, 22 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, JERRY talk contribs 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Reservoir Dogs characters - the information is useful, but not as a seperate article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - your trying to get rid of Mr. Orange? Only Mr. White can do that! Notable fictional character (Greatest Independent Film ever made [1]). No consensus = default keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it's been one week since this was submitted for AfD, and there has not been much substantial improvement to the article. There are no acceptable references (the few that existed all failed WP:RS and were deleted), and there is only a paragraph or two of unverified real-world discussion - all of the rest of the article is plot discussion. I suggest that the real-world material be integrated into Reservoir Dogs, if it can be reliably sourced, and the article redirected to the film. Characters who only appear in one work of fiction generally are redirected back to the work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with merging to Reservoir Dogs, there have been less notable films on Wikipedia that have their own list of characters page. Once again I suggest you read these articles: Mr. Pink, Lawrence Dimmick, Vic Vega, those and this one are pretty much the same and a "List of characters" article would have enough information. There is too much stuff to merge to Reservoir Dogs, it would make the article over-detail. So either keep the articles, or merge them into List of Reservoir Dogs characters.--The Dominator (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other stuff exists does not warrant the inclusion of this article. These character articles could very well receive the same kind of treatment as this article, as none of them have detail that cannot be covered in the Plot and Cast sections at Reservoir Dogs. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There doesn't appear to be anything in this article that can't be said on the film page. Dominik, the fact that other pages exist does not mean that this page should exist as well. It fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Since this page fails so many guidelines and policies (others that are not mentioned, but are basically part of the ones I did mention), it doesn't need its own page, and for that matter neither do those other articles you mention. The fact that the film is notable does not make the characters themselves notable. Unless you can provide sources that show "significant coverage", the simple face that he was a character in a notable movie is irrelevant. Just because you think he's notable, doesn't make him notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't only me that said this page should stay, and what does everybody have with creating a "list of characters" page? We'd have enough information to do that, and this film has an ensemble cast with many characters. The list would contain everything from these four articles, plus information on 5 or 6 other characters. I think merging all of them together is a better idea than deleting them, and a main character in a very influential and notable film is generally going to warrant some extra mention, maybe not his own character page, but at least a list. The information would make the Reservoir Dogs article too long and over-detailed.--The Dominator (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You aren't supposed to create a List of characters page unless the list of characters is so long that they need to be covered separately. What do they need that cannot be covered in the plot section of the film article? Every topic must establish its own notability on Wikipedia if its wants its own page. Even lists have criteria for existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references from The Internet Movie Database shouldn't have been deleted from the article during this discussion. IMDb is an accepted resource per WP:MOVIE. And as such should be reinstated. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't saying the IMDb is a reliable source (which it isn't), it's saying that IMDb can lead you in the right directly because it usually provides a lot of links to reliable sources. IMDb does not cite any sources for the information that it has, as it is typically fan submitted, which is not in any way considered reliable here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Bignole, you have still not expressed your opinion about a lit of characters page, there are the four character pages that I can merge + 6 other characters. You'd be getting rid of four unsourced character pages instead of one.--The Dominator (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is enough info, the character pages have existed here for so long, so I don't see why they have to be deleted instead of just a list made. It would not be good to merge into Reservoir Dogs.--The Dominator (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why it is not good to merge into the film article. These characters are famous because of the film. They are not famous apart from the film. All names can be redirected to the film article, and whatever encyclopedic detail about these characters can be elaborated there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why multiple times, it is simply too damn long! This film is one of the most influential in history, and the main reason is the characters and their dialogue which I believe makes them notable on their own.--The Dominator (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Reservoir Dogs. There is nothing here that cannot be covered in either the Plot or Cast sections of the film. Look at Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast -- it has bullet points with a character description and real-world context for each character. No reason why Reservoir Dogs#Cast can't be expanded to be like that; it's hardly a large article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the same treatment should be given to any stand-alone character articles. They are all known because of the film and do not warrant spinning off when the film article is not maxed out on detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why go into such detail on the Reservoir Dogs article when we can make a cast page, I'm pretty sure that at this point, the info on the characters is larger than the Reservoir Dogs article itself.--The Dominator (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because per WP:SS, there is no reason to spin off a new article when the original one can house details comfortably. The film article is not at all pressed for space, and the characters are directly relevant to the film. In the character articles I've noticed, there is blatant original research in describing the characters' personalities and indiscriminate plot descriptions that are already covered in the Plot section of the film article. There would be some trimming, and only relevant encyclopedic details would be kept about each character in the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why?! A cast page would do exactly the same thing, but go into more detail and elaborate on the characters' personalities and actions.--The Dominator (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need its own page? What is so special about an independent page (which fails multiple guidelines, no less)? The important thing is to retain verified and relevant information, not a proliferation of articles. Quality vs quantity, etc... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the character articles have editors' interpretations of the characters' personalities. This is original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. In addition, more character detail is in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; Wikipedia articles are intended to focus on real-world context. A lot of in-universe information that you might've seen on Wikipedia is currently being moved to fan-centric Wikias, like Star Wars and TV shows. It's not appropriate to write on and on about a character here when no real-world context applies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just can't imagine the info in the Reservoir Dogs article. I think there is enough info for the characters to warrant their own page.--The Dominator (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say you think the characters should have their own articles. What if you're wrong? When you trim the original research and the extraneous plot information, what is left? Try to emulate a detailed Cast section because any information about these characters is directly relevant to the film. If the characters really do garner enough real-world context, they may have their own article, but it's highly unlikely considering that they've only appeared once in this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What stays is that the info is notable and should be included in an encyclopedia.--The Dominator (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no grounds for speedy deletion; the best solution would simply be to redirect the articles to Reservoir Dogs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I overwrite the afd tag in the process?--The Dominator (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article reinstated. Please wait for admin closure of this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done, unfortunately, I really hoped to keep this one, maybe one day Wikipedia will finally consider fictional characters notable, I hope so. Anyway, there's no point in waiting since I already merged and redirected the other articles.--The Dominator (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always argue for the usage of IMDb as a source, since fan submissions are monitored by the staff...EXCEPT the character pages: "The content of this page was created by users. It has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff.", directly from the page you linked, if it were up to me I'd probably use it if there was no other substitute, but its not acceptable.--The Dominator (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb's status as a reliable source in any regard has been rejected in past guideline discussion regarding the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followed your link. I see NO consensus. That's a Wikipedia talk page. Nothing more. Nothing less. making it as a link that says "has been rejected" doesn't make it so. Once again read WP:MOVIE. Oh and I realise it wasn't you but this article should not have been redirected (since reverted) until the closing admin gives us the result. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Face it, nobody is ever going to find this notable, I've already merged the articles, Mr. Pink, Vic Vega and Lawrence Dimmick all redirect to Reservoir Dogs now, the debate is over. Not that I wanted it to end this way, I meand I did create it as well as Mr. Pink, but what are you going to do?--The Dominator (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - Firstly it's not a debate. Secondly you creating it is not an arguement now it has been listed at AfD. You creating an article does not make it yours. It belongs to Wikipedia and is part of a collaboration. It needs to follow process now. If the closing admin decides to redirect then so be it. If they decide it's a no consensus which makes it a keep. Then it gets kept. Now after that process the next step is up to however decides to do the next edit. Get me? My point was you shouldn't have done the redirect whilst AfD still in progress. Just wait till its closed and then do your thing. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you, I didn't want to redirect, but it's not going to end in any other way. I never said that it was my article, why did you even bring that up? I just said that I created it to prove the point that I don't want it deleted, frankly I don't know why we're arguing if we agree with each other. Not a debate? What is it, a damn tea party? It's a debate, we're a group of people with conflicting opinions that are discussing something, are we not? That's the definition of a debate.--The Dominator (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I should have explained myself a bit better. Not a debate as in it being a "discussion" i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions. Not that it matters though? I thought also that when you put "did create it" above that was saying you could do what you like with it? I was wrong however to read that into your comments just because you bolded the did makes no difference. Please accept my apology. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange how some of the pages make it and some don't even though they're pretty much the same. Anyway, I was hoping that I could at least get the "list of characters" going, but if you think about it, ther isn't that much info to add, they all pretty much go into plot detail, unsourced trivia and crap like that. Now that I think about it, who really cares that the production team had to peel Tim Roth of the floor? I think a character page can be good, but probably isn't going to find many sources if the character only appeared in one film, but some character pages can look pretty good, off the top of my head: Darth Vader, Rocky Balboa (character) or Hannibal Lector, but they appeared in literature and over five films. What bothers me is the inconsistency on Wikipedia though, sometimes the page stays, sometimes it doesn't, it's annoying--The Dominator (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Reservoir Dogs or delete. No real-world notability. Despite a promise 7 days ago "True I have not established any meaningful context yet, but there is plenty and I will add it, complete with sources", changes since the AFD nomination have not fixed this. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to attack, if you'd bother to read through the discussion, you'd see that I've admitted failure and have already merged the other pages to Reservoir Dogs, I'm just waiting for this afd to close so I can delete and redirect.--The Dominator (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I did not read through the discussion. I just read the article. My apologies. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Does not signify importance.Metal Head (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fictional character from extremely notable film and subsequent video game. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of a film has no direct bearing on the notability of a fictional character. The character is a relevant part of this film, just as the torture scene and the car are relevant parts of the film. The video game is based on the film in a franchise move and is hardly transcendental of this fictional character or any fictional character from the film itself. Like it's been said, Reservoir Dogs#Cast can be expanded accordingly after having trimmed extraneous/redundant plot detail, trivial bits, and original research (like personality). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already done so, Erik. The only thing missing is the vitally important trivia!!!--The Dominator (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed; nice work, that's what I think some of us were trying to suggest. In regard to the trivia, you can move any trivia bits that could belong to a larger picture, like the portrayal of the character, and add a {{cn}} tag for the time being. Try to use keywords in the bit to find a reliable source so it can be cited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of kidding about the trivia, most of it is not very notable, but now that I think of it, there is some interesting information in it, like Madsen's reaction to the ear-cutting scene.--The Dominator (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is actually more information about him, presented much more clearly, in the main article on the film. I often will support articles on important characters, but they have to be better than this. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, you did an excellent job of it, so we can safely delete this page now. DGG (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is ridiculous to have separate articles on characters in films unless the are of huge importance and notability. This shows no evidence of either. NBeale (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit of a Doubt[edit]

Benefit of a Doubt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable group. Also suspect WP:COI from name of creating editor, who also removed prod with comment. tomasz. 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Maser[edit]

Walter Maser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced one line BLP about a video director; no souces indicating notability; just nn - so nn we don't know where or when he was born, what else he did but the one item mentioned, or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 230 (that's two hundred and thirty) GHits in total suggest not notable and not enough WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources about the individual. No indication of any awards or even any accolades. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --MCB (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Smart (book)[edit]

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

A book about private highways. A long list of authors but no attempt to explain its notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You shot youself in the foot by not including the above info. in the article - do you think that a) we all know what the FHWA is and b) we will instantly recognise that one of the authors is a FHWA secretary. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep sourced and per issue of one source being from a paper he edited the article in question was written 20 years after he retired and 11 years since he a had died so they are independent. Gnangarra 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Gius[edit]

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

Notable? Willy turner (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd say those links down at the bottom are references. From the first it seems like he's notable, assuming it's reliable. Going to wikify it now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, after vastly cleaning it up (meaning removing a ton of cruft), we're left with a stub. Asside from the redlinks, it looks fine now. Not sure what to do about those. The article also had a problem with dates; it said he died in 1986 but retired in 1987. Date of death needs to be added now, since I don't know which to use. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has sources demonstrating notability. I've done a bit of editing too. The hall of fame source says he died in 1996, and the second source quoted by the original author does talk about him, so I've reinstated it to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources asserting notability are from the paper he edited. This cannot be good enough. NBeale (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I have added a brief note to March, Cambridgeshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March March march[edit]

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

Non-notable ramble by some Cambridge academics. Appears to be a case of WP:NFT. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. Okay it doesn't comply with WP:BIO but can't the site be fun too? --The Ghost | séance 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable if only because of the homophonous title phrase which includes 3 seperate meanings of the word march. Lumos3 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am generally in favour of wikipedia's more quirky articles, I have strong doubts as a member of the University as to the notability of this event (which I must admit I had never heard of before), and fear it would open the door to inclusion of various other university "traditions" which are not at all widely known outside of a small group of participants. The novel combination of 3 meanings of the same word does not make it encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Robotforaday (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - a shame to lose what? a link to their homepage detailing the event? nothing is lost in deleting this article, which does not currently meet guidelines for inclusion. change to keep if 3rd party sources with the event as a the primary subject are added (should be easy, if notable). ∴ here…♠ 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the original nominator, I would like to change my recommendation to speedy delete (A7, does not assert its significance.) Its home page describes it as a "pointless" walk which was founded for no other reason than "it seemed like a good idea at the time" and that last year nobody even turned up for it. I don't think relisting it was actually necessary to be honest. But having said that, you must admit that it is rather funny. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to be notable in itself to be merged - it just has to be verifiable and relevant to the target article, which it is. And at least one reasonable source thinks it's worth a mention in an article about March. I can also testify that it has some degree of local fame in Cambridgeshire - I have no connection to the university, but had heard of it, and been amused by it, before. (Yes, I know that's an ATA, but I don't care.} So I think it can justify a couple of sentences in the March article. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no reason why it shouldn't have a mention in the March, Cambridgeshire article -- that isn't up for discussion (notability does not limit article content) and the appropriate place to discuss that is the talk page for March, Cambridgeshire. What we are discussing here is whether it warrants having an article of its own, and in the absence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it doesn't. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to March per above and redirect. It is relevant to consider merger here, because if the article is deleted the content can't be merged. The history has to still be available to comply with GFDL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, however, there isn't anything that the March article needs to say in addition to what it already says. Virtually all the content of this article is reproduced verbatim from the event's web page, all we have in terms of secondary sources is a one line mention in a local tourist brochure, and to go above and beyond that in terms of merging would be original research and/or not independently verifiable. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worth merging (and part of the article is a copyvio from [6]). Last few times they held it, there were 5, 3, 5, and zero participants. No wonder they want some publicity. If we still had BJAODN, there would be a place for it. DGG (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amusing but no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, though the result would be more convincing if real world sourcing were added.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zion (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article is an in-universe repetition of the plot of the Matrix movies, and as they already cover the plot in an appropriate size, this is entirely duplicative, without any referencing or notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article is fascinating for fans of the Matrix films and I cannot see what is gained by deleting it. If you wanted to find out specifically about the city, you would not want to read everything ever written on the matrix so having a separate article makes sense to me. Skip1337 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a central setting of an important series of works. I'm going to guess this passes WP:FICT after doing a quick Google/Google Scholar search. I'd list them here, but I have to go to a meeting now, so I'll try to come back to this discussion afterwards and list any that I can find. True, those sources should be worked into the actual article, but as I'm sure I've said before, AfD =! cleanup. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of Course AFD doesn't equal cleanup, but with no references, I haven't asked for cleanup, but deletion. If we can get multiple sources added to the article, then we have something, but google searches with uncertain content is not establishment of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google test is a bad idea here, as Zion also refers to Jerusalem. Google scholar is an even worse idea RogueNinjatalk 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, you search for something like "Zion Matrix film movie" to screen out things that refer to the real-world place. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major series or great notability; subarticles like this are only sensible, and this one is of a significant aspect of it. JJL (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability. Marlith T/C 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources given. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies. Argyriou (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it exists across many films, games, etc. Notable within all of those as a major location in the overall story.Gwynand (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, and does not seem redundent to information elsewhere --T-rex 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Seriously, there's no need to have an article about this. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armored Personnel Unit[edit]

Armored Personnel Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just a repetition of plot points from various Matrix media without any referencing or notability outside of those articles. As such, this is duplicative of the plot sections of the articles it was taken from and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article is just a repetition of gameplay and plot elements from the Enter the Matrix video game, and has no sourcing or notability of its own. As such, it is totally duplicative of information already in that article, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RogueNinjatalk 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources given. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies and their marketing franchise, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies/comics/video game. Argyriou (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just looks awesome and I can see there has been put a lot of work into it. Just give it's creator another chance to reference it properly and see whether it can be kept. Let us all keep up good faith here. Ramtashaniku (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking awesome and people working on it are not valid reasons to keep an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is. At least the fact there has been done so much work on it much get you all think. Try to ask the people who work on it whether they can reference it or not. If they can, nothing is wrong, if they cannot, delete it. But at least give them time to respond properly! Ramtashaniku (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes Boffey[edit]

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

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. Doesn't meet notability guidelines for athletes -- never played professionally. No verifiable sources listed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I contributed the PROD tag which was removed, no problem with that, and I don't personally regard "tallest person ever to try out for an NFL team" evidence of any notability whatever -- even if it had reliable sources, which it does not. Had it not had that assertion, I would have speedy-deleted it. This individual's other professional activities do not seem to lend any notability either. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The man never played in a regular-season game. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as an athlete, he does not meet WP:BIO, as he did not play in the NFL, and all I could find was this one possible mention which might not even be him. [7]. As a counselor, a Google news search shows he's been used as a source of quotes, but does not appear to have been the subject of the coverage. There does appear to be an article about him in Camp magazine, but it's not clear if that can be considered a reliable source, and the article is behind a pay wall. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not, at the moment, appear to be notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zion (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article is just a in-universe repetition of elements from the plot of The Matrix Online, and establishes no notability independent from it. As such, this is totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pn also, you can list multiple articles in 1 afd RogueNinjatalk 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources given. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies. Argyriou (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero One[edit]

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

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of one of the stories from the Animatrix, and has no notability or referencing of its own. As this is covered in appropriate detail at that article, this is wholly duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources given. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies and associated marketing franchise, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies. Argyriou (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be found that establish notability by showing significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I may not agree with the article, however, when you get over 300 Hits at Google Scholar, as shown here [8] that is pretty impressive in and of itself. Likewise, when there are over 10,00 hits at Google as shown here [9] using a very specific search criteria on both searches, I would have to say Keep. Shoessss |  Chat  14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - most of those hits at Google Scholar are utterly unrelated to this. There are 4 which appear to be related to the movie. In the two which I could see, the single mention of "Zero One" was a trivial mention - the articles are about the movies in general, but we already know the movies are notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the contention of the article, as I read it, is that Machine City and Zero-One are interchangeable. The Google Scholar hits verify that point, with a tad more than only four articles, and trivial is WP:POV :-). In that sense, a merge to Machine City would be appropriate. However, there is no article on Machine City. Shoessss |  Chat  01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs so it is currently non-notable OR. NBeale (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete also agree that Redpill though it should be done via an separate afd as there hasnt been any consideration of it within this. Gnangarra 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepill[edit]

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

This article is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Matrix movies, and has no notability or referencing of its own. As this is all covered by the Matrix film article, this is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources given. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies. Worse yet, the concept of "the blue pill" - the actual pill offered to people - may actually be a notable concept, while this isn't. Argyriou (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or Merge 'red pill' and 'blue pill' are used to describe people who seek out and believe the truth rather than just accepting what is told to them by the mainstream or those in power. I assume the term came from the movie. I looked up these articles to see if it existed before the movie. I have definitely seen and heard the terms used without mentioning the movie, such as referring to "people who take the blue pill". --Kalmia (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is ridiculous. All this film-cruft just makes WikiPedia look silly NBeale (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:FICT covered with WP:PLOT. Seems like an attempt to start a WP:NEO. -Verdatum (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redpill should probably also be AFD'd. It's slightly better formatted, but doesn't due much better to establish notability. -Verdatum (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobil Ave (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article is a lot of plot speculation, also known as original research, has no references or notability, and is already covered in the 3rd Matrix article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources given. WP:OR/speculation. No assertion that this is notable outside the context of the movies, and therefore it should not be separated from the articles about the movies. Argyriou (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article or delete per nom, especially WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. I say merge, as it appears to be a notable element of the movies, but I am not sure. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Not worth keeping. Can't create an article about every single detail in the Matrix universe. This is clearly an unnotable topic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. it's impossible to form consensus in such a mass AFD as this, discussing merging in wikiproject talk. Also I'm not removing all these AFD tags, as it's so many articles and I have no time for this, let someone else do it. Secret account 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Propane People[edit]

Contested prod. These are all articles for individual episodes of the television series King of the Hill. They consist of overlong plot summaries, infoboxes, and quote sections. As of the time of this nomination, only one of these sixty articles contains a reference to a reliable source, and that's only to source a claim about television ratings. These are not encyclopedia articles, and have practically no hope of ever becoming so.

I made a similar nomination last week with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas. Consensus in that discussion was to delete all of the articles nominated, and many of the arguments presented there will cross-apply here. Most importantly, it is clear that notability is not inherited: Time Magazine is notable, but last week's issue of TIME is not.

When proding these articles, I inadvertently used the edit summary "cleanup using AWB". The prods were removed on the procedural grounds of that not being a very good edit summary to use when proding an article (indeed it isn't). Still, supporters of WP:EPISODE may desire the content of the articles merged and redirected to List of King of the Hill episodes. There is no content to merge, as the episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is needless, as not a single one of these article titles make a reasonable search term. Therefore, I ask that we delete all of these articles. ➪HiDrNick! 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all The proposed destination of this content - the list of episodes - is already too large: This page is 83 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. Retaining these articles as stubs is therefore best. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge, so that is irrelevant. The current summaries fit just fine. If anything were to be split, it would be season articles. TTN (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) You misunderstand the nomination. The proposed destination of this content is the bit bucket, not the list. I specifically advocated against merging any of this content. ➪HiDrNick! 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to rule out the merge option as huge list articles seem awful. As for the detailed articles - you've checked all 60 articles carefully, searched for sources and know this highly-rated show well enough to be absolutely sure that the articles can't be improved any more? You are welcome to your opinion but I still think it is absurd as these episodes have great notability by virtue of their large ratings and sales. Still Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These do not assert independent notability, so they don't need to exist. TTN (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

option.

  • Keep most, if not all - A number of them do have unique trivia, runtime, and guest-actor information. It wouldn't be practical to list all this information on the episode list page. Keeping these in separate articles is useful rather than a single one, if for no other reason than to make them all more legible. Jkatzen (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those provide content for a notable article (read over WP:N. TTN (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources, in this type of instance, isn't a deletion criteria. The verifiability policy is clear sourcing is strict about "material likely to be challenged." The air date, title, credits, and simple plot summary are not material likely to be challenged and they form the basis for a perfect stub. Of particular consideration here are things like the pilot episode, which set up the characters and setting. This isn't at all like Ren & Stimpy. R&S is a fine show, but KotH is the second longest running animated sitcom in TV history, having a few dozen episodes with articles, out of 250 aired episodes sounds like some editorial discretion about which episodes need articles has already occurred.
Another issue is that this is occurring in the backdrop of reformulating the tv episode guideline to something that actually has consensus and an Arbcom case where this kind of mass nomination is under review. Not only shouldn't they be deleted, but this is the wrong time to ask for their deletion under the quoted criteria, because the quoted criteria doesn't reflect the community. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Articles that do not meet the notability guideline or show potential to meet it are candidates for deletion. Episodes generally do not have potential, so leaving them as stubs indefinitely does not help. TTN (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So says you. That opinion doesn't have community consensus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As an extension of WP:N, it cannot do anything more than apply the specifics of it to television episodes. When N is undergoing a discussion, you'll have a point. TTN (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll have a point when you bother to respond to the RfCs and ArbCom case about this exact issue. You're a named party. Your absolute silence on the matter says everything it needs to about your contempt for the community and it's processes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
My participation is irrelevant to this AfD, so please stay on topic. TTN (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You used WP:N as a rationale. There is 500kb of discussion on how to apply WP:N to television episodes. Your opinion, which you keep replying with to every keep rationale as if it was policy, is not meeting with community consensus in those discussions. Your lack of participation in those discussions is directly relevant to this AfD because the statements you are making on this AfD are clinging to interpretations of those discussions that the community doesn't believe. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
And without changing WP:N, it will be impossible to change it that drastically. Last time I checked, they were just working on making the process smoother and more user friendly rather than changing the definition of notability anyways. When the guidelines actually state that episodes containing only plot summaries are good, then the community consensus won't be going along with my interpretations. TTN (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's your opinion of the meaning of notability. There is plenty of opinion otherwise. You should be participating and discussing this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Editorial judgment? Have you read any of the nominated articles? Each one contains the same unsourced plot summaries and trivia. There is no rhyme or reason here as to why one episode has an article and another one doesn't. Not a single one of these articles makes so much as an independent claim to notability Can you demonstrate that any one of these episodes received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? ➪HiDrNick! 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, "Dr Nick," it's clear you're not telling the truth here when you say "not a single one of these articles makes so much as an independent claim to notability". About a dozen of them list, verifiably, significant award nominations or wins. It would have taken you about a minute and a half to check the awards out at any number of tv/video/animation sites, but you didn't bother to. And now you come back here and say things that obviously aren't true, and show no acquaintaince with the contents of the articles. You're just riding the wave of one side in an edit war and expecting that nobody will take the time to check out dozens of article. Can you demonstrate that you aren't lying here, and that you didn't act in bad faith? VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pilot episode has dozens of other sources because every TV critic in the US watched it. Several episodes have emmy nominations, those should be easy to find coverage on. The episode you named the AfD after has at least one cite on Google News. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
And yes, if 50 episodes have articles out of a few hundred, then someone made a judgment to write about that episode. Did you use any editorial judgment in nominating them? It appears you just loaded the entire category into AWB and put a PROD notice on every one in about 7 minutes.
  • Redirect all to LoE because of poor timing (WP:EPISODE, RfAr); otherwise reluctant delete because there was no tagging, and I don't know the show and can't check if real-world sources exist (e.g. audio commentaries). – sgeureka t•c 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty of audio commentaries, booklets, guides and secondary materials exist to source from. That's why these are perfectly valid stubs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
In this case, I strike my recommendation, but I'd reconsider a redirection if no progress for improvement is made. As far as I checked, all articles are really poor and don't cover anything that the LoE doesn't already cover. – sgeureka t•c 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close with no prejudice for reopening pending the outcome of the arbitration above. It seems like there's a lot of WP:POINTy stuff going on above and, as has been noted, Wiki is in the process of trying to come to a consensus on the issue of the notability of television episodes. Redfarmer (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or at least keep the ones that won awards. If Emmy-nominated episodes of Family Guy, like North by North Quahog, are kept I don't see why the one Emmy-winning episode of this show must be deleted. Granted "Family Guy" DVDs sell better and they have more Internet presence, but still winning a major award is considered to meet notability elsewhere.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too soon to decide: change all 60 to tag with an empty "Template:KingHill_notability" (or such) to be filled with future AfD to easily activate future discussion about removing non-notable episodes. Future notability might depend on major events in an episode for each character's long-term status. As for Time magazine, issues would be notable such as "Person of the Century" (or decade), invasion of Iraq, and such. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "too soon to decide" mean? Most if not all of these article were created over 6 months ago. I propose we not wait for Time magazine to put a King of the Hill episode on the cover. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect non-notable episodes, presumably all, per WP:EPISODE. This can be easily undone if consensus changes, but at this time such a change is merely a gleam in the eye of some episode stub defender. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now and develop only the following episodes, for which plausible notability cases can be made:
      • Won't You Pimai Neighbor? – see Reception section. It's not much and could easily be merged into the main King of the Hill article if it fails to thrive on its own. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My Own Private Rodeo – nominated for an award from GLAAD, apparently didn't win. This is probably not another Homer's Phobia, but we could give it the benefit of the doubt. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And They Call It Bobby Love – this episode won the show's only Emmy award. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you add Bobby Goes Nuts, which did get critical coverage and an award-win, to those three that might be enough kept for me. Although I might add the pilot as well. At the same time I don't really see why more couldn't be kept.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see anything worth keeping in either of those. I noticed that Annie award for Bobby Goes Nuts, but it's for a voiceover rather than the episode itself, so that would add to the actor's page more than this article; and besides, it's an Annie award so who cares? I don't think IGN counts as notable "critical coverage", and I'm certain TV.com's "Top Episodes" for King of the Hill does not. I don't know if pilot episodes are considered automatically notable yet, but that's the only thing Pilot (King of the Hill) has going for it. Redirect both as non-notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [Note: italicized notable above added 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) for clarity.][reply]
            • It was an Emmy, not an Annie. Although an Annie-win I would personally place as more significant than a GLAAD nomination. And even if IGN doesn't count the journalist named has his own Wikipedia article. I think you're being way too strict. Keeping only five is a fairly bare minimum.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right, it's an Emmy, for a voice actor; someone should add that to her article. As far as I can tell, a mention in IGN[10] is like a listing in TV guide, not ipso facto notable for a DVD release of a TV show, and the reviewer given this job doesn't transfer his notability to the episode unless that reviewer is Noam Chomsky or something. My Own Private Rodeo' GLAAD nom has the advantage of demonstrating interest outside of TV for TV's sake, which gets "real world" points. Ditto the Buddhism Film Fest inclusion for Won't You Pimai Neighbor?. I don't think there should be an arbitrary minimum number of episode articles (other than zero), and the three I list I consider plausibly notable, not clearly worth standalone articles, so if anything I am being lenient here. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Although I sort of see what you're saying TV is going to be notable with TV stuff. It's almost like penalizing an article on a book because it hasn't been mentioned in the movies or by DJs.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you're saying, but it would still count as a source independent of itself that classes it as notable or meritorious. That plus the episode winning an Annie for "Outstanding Writing in Animated Television"[11] and the voice acting Emmy seems to make it sufficient to me. Standards vary though.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We disagree on standards, and that doesn't make me right. However, all the quality information contained in these 3 or 4 articles could go into a concisely written (guessing at title here) Notable episodes section of the KotH article, which would improve that article considerably, perhaps giving it sufficient interesting material for a future FA nomination. (I would offer to perform this merge if I didn't expect it to be reverted by angry episode enthusiasts.) Evidence of WP:NOTE alone for an episode does not mean a good standalone article can be made, only that there is sufficient possibility to justfy the attempt. Honestly, I lean toward Redirect all (per Guest9999 below), but for the articles I've listed, I'm willing to let WP:Eventualism have its day in court. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The episode Bobby Goes Nuts also won an Annie Award for writing.[12] I know that award doesn't mean much to you, but a win combined with the other things should make it more plausible as a keeper.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • C'mon. Are these ever going to be good articles? Compare. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe this is the standard we use. It's true that Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill is miniscule compared to Category:Wikipedians who like House or Category:Wikipedians who like M*A*S*H. Because of that there will not be the same energy put into making an episode article good or featured, barring one of the fans of the show doing it singlehandedly. (This is not impossible, but my guess would be it's unlikely) Still that says more about demographics than notability. Homer's Enemy largely uses IGN and comments from the people who worked on the episode. As far as I can tell the episode didn't win anything and didn't have unusually high Nielsen ratings for the series. Yet that's featured.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Mary Tyler Moore Show was extremely popular, and is today considered influential on U.S. 70s society, on other shows, and to various people's careers in TV. They have one (1) episode article two (2) episode article, one of them an ass-kickingly good episode. The article itself isn't great and is just barely sourced, but the reserve shown by these editors is exemplary. (Even if that reserve is really because the show isn't currently popular or completely available on DVD.) / edg ☺ ☭ 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) [Edit: actually two episodes, ruining my point. And really, a merge with these would improve the main article nicely.] [Edit strike entire comment, example isn't as exemplary as I remembered. If anyone cares, the episode was Chuckles Bites the Dust / edg ☺ ☭ 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep all. Listing all of these accomplishes nothing except people being pissed off about it. Mike H. Fierce! 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Karanacs (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding WP:V, some of this information appears to be from DVD commentary or something similar. If this is the case, these sources are not cited in any of the articles, unfortunately. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I think there is enough with these articles to keep. Thanks Lummie (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SchmuckyTheCat's arguments and replies to comments.--Alf melmac 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of the articles are completely unsourced and consist only of a plot summary. Wikipedia articles should not simply be plot summaries. Other sections included in several of the articles are "Trivia" and "Cultural References", this is almost all unsourced, unencyclopaedic original research and synthesis - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. In the very few articles that sources are given they are almost always not reliable (such as IMDB or TV.com) or not independent (such as DVD commentries or comments from the creators of the series). The articles therefore show no evidence that the episodes meet the standards of notability - having recieved significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - required for inclusion. WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", it is unlikely such sourcing could be found for the vast majority - and prehaps all - of these episodes/articles. It might be appropriate to merge some information into the main King of the Hill article such as the awards won by And They Call It Bobby Love and Bobby Goes Nuts (if reliable sources that verify the information can be found) but even these accolades are unlikely to have given rise to the significant coverage required to confer notability to the individual episodes themselves. Guest9999 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not necessarily advocating this, but what would you feel about breaking List of King of the Hill episodes into 12 "list of X season episodes" and then making the episode articles into redirects? This would allow for more information on notable episodes than the current single-list allows, but avoid the temptation of making any old episode an article. Granted I'm uncomfortable with this idea as it seems unfair to this show, but I thought I'd float it anyway.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might be a good idea, especially if it allows adding guest cast and other episode-specific production details (WP:V permitting). Plot summaries should be as concise as possible (the current 1-2 sentence summaries are ideal) because they pose a genuine risk of WP:COPYVIO problems, but after 200 episodes I can imagine crowding being an issue. The only disadvantage is navigation, since having it all on one page makes searching easier; just breaking the list into "Seasons 1-5" and "Seasons 6-10" might be a good compromise.
        If by "fairness to the show" you mean number of episode articles versus other shows, give it some time for other shows to be addressed. My guess is that shows whose episode articles include FA and GA articles will be sorted out last. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, close immediately due to nominator misconduct. Despite what the nominator claims, quite a few of these articles reliably source assertions of notability -- Bobby Goes Nuts won one of the two Emmy Awards it was nominated for, And They Call It Bobby Love won an Emmy, two of the other listed episodes were nominated for Writers Guild of America Awards, and about a dozen others were nominated (easily verifiably) for nontrivial TV, media, or animation industry awards. The nominator either hasn't read the articles involved or has chosen to lie about thier contents. This sort of indiscriminate assault on Wikipedia content has nothing to do with policy or guidelines -- it's just creepy gameplaying. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you're new around here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Seeing as how this is a wiki, articles here undergo constant change, even when they're the subject of deletion discussions. At the time that I nominated the articles, only one article contained a reference to a reliable source. IMDB and TV.com are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Most of these articles have been tagged as lacking notability for over a month. Since this discussion was started, several users have added references to actual real live reliable sources to the articles; this is great! Hooray for sources! Do two sources added to an article demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Well, of course not, but you have to start somewhere.
      I do hope that you'll either strike some of your above comments or provide some diffs so substantiate them, or risk appearing hysterical to any rational people participating in this discussion: I have not lied about anything. ➪HiDrNick! 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the primary reason that it's difficult, if not impossible to consider the individual merits of each article when there's several dozen of them. Secondary reason is that as an individual episode of a nationally broad-cast, critically acclaimed, long-running television show, I doubt that it would be difficult, let alone impossible to construct reasonable articles on each episode. To delete these articles would require a significant shift in attitude on the part of many Wikipedia editors, one that I don't see present. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as some of these episode do seem to have a claim to notability. Also mass nominations are seldom a good idea, especially when pointy. RMHED (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you actually claim that in making this nomination I am intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I assure you that any disruption that may have occurred is accidental: having just put though a perfectly successful mass nomination of unnotable episode articles a week ago, I honestly was not expecting such a markedly different reaction here. I see little difference between the two sets of articles. Perhaps it's because this is a more popular television program, or because it is still aired? Maybe I just got a different crowd of AfDers this things around, or perhaps I attracted the attention of the ultra-inclusionists with the last successful nom? I honestly have no idea. ➪HiDrNick! 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Most, if not all, are notable, and if they weren't at the time of nomination, they are now. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rumor-mongering. Virtually none of these articles have been edited since HiDrNick nominated them for deletion. The exceptions [13] [14] [15] [16] are edits that have no effect on notability whatsoever. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to List of King of the Hill episodes. King of the Hill gets little media attention, which mean no reviews so no content other than plot summary, which means that notability is questionable. Many of the articles do not have talk pages, which indicates little activity, as does the lack of a King of the Hill task force. Not a single article is GA or FA so editors have not demonstrated that they can clean up these pages. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The need for clean up is not a valid reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above redirect vote is based on lack of notability, not need for cleanup. Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The editor states that notability is questionable and then goes on to discuss that clean up hasn't happened. I'll stick with my original statement, though I agree that notability was raised as a potential issue. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an individual article for each season, and merge each episode into its relevant season article. For example King of the Hill (season 6). 250 episodes is far too many for a single list. Since each season is/will be sold as a DVD, a season could be thought of as similar to a film. Reviews of each season are also easier to find, for example these [17] [18] [19] reviews of season 6. Bláthnaid 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not generally opposed to this idea . . . but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work -- why not leave it as-is for now? Jkatzen (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in some reasonable way. Possible by season, as it is too long for a single article. This needn't have come here. Excess tends to produce a disproportionate reaction. this is excess, and if we had avoided it we wouldn't have provoked people into excessive deletion. for that matter, if the anti-article group had kept to patiently merging articles like this, while preserving content, 99% of us would have applauded them, DGG (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that the above comment is extraordinarily wise. Would that the music folks could do the same with albums and discographies! Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep primarily for procedural reasons. Too many articles to figure out what is notable and what isn't. Though I strongly suspect nearly every KotH episode can be shown to be notable. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, I would like to hear if the nominator actually searched for information on each of these. Deletions should only be proposed when you have put in some effort to see if the article has notability, not just because you suspect it isn't notable. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And finally, I want to support my keep by my arguments made below. Some articles in the group have been shown to be notable. Others may be, but asking for the deletion of such a large group makes it hard to figure out which is which in any reasonable time frame. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why people want 40 separate AFDs. If you cannot be bothered to read the nominated articles, why not leave the voting to people who will? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's clear to me that some of these articles are notable, and that a quick search would have turned that up. As such, I'm guessing that he didn't do a search on each of them. To me, that's the bare minimum one should do before coming to AfD. The issue isn't if the articles as written are meet notability guidelines. The issue is if they can meet notability guidelines. reading the articles isn't anywhere near enough. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of these articles were taged as lacking notabliy for awhile before this nomination. Not a single one of the articles contained a reliably sourced claim of notability at the time of my nomination. How long should they remained taged before we clean them out? Even after all this discussion, I'm not convinced that a single one of these articles are notable. Remember, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" None of these episodes even come close to meeting this threashold, even the Emmy-winning ones. Infomation from the few episode articles mentioned above that contain anything other than overlong plot summary can be merged to the main KotH article, and then deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hobit: Your assertions are that:
            1. No one can tell with this many articles if any are notable.
            2. You can tell, and what's more you believe they all are.
          • Reconciling these statements, you seem to be saying you are the only editor who can read all these articles, and the rest of us should bow to your opinion. Thank you for presenting to us your unique and valuable insights. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent) My result is an archived Google news search limited to 1997 that shows several pages of clear and obvious press sources specifically about the Pilot episode. Particularly, look at the results in paid archive banks. These articles are about the anticipation leadup to the show and critical reception afterwards. We aren't talking about TV Guide listings with that search. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Then why aren't they referenced in the article! Pilot (King of the Hill) has only two refereces to IMDB. This article was tagged for lacking notability back in June, and you yourself reverted the taging while making no effort to improve the article. How long should we just leave these plot summaries just lying around? ➪HiDrNick! 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because nobody has gotten around to it. This is a wiki, there are no deadlines. That's a pretty core concept to how the project functions.
How long? Until it brings harm to the project. These are stubs, not completely written articles (as if anything here is ever complete). Stubs obviously fail all sorts of best practices and guidelines. When people decide to spend more time on them they will be more than they are now. We don't delete stubs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
          • Point taken about eventualism; I got carried away, and am straying from the main point here. The fact that there are many articles about and reviews of the pilot doesn't nessessarly mean that it's editorialy wise to have an article about it. First off, many of those sources are about the series itself, and do not establish notability for the pilot episode. Many of those sources and additions would be great for the main article. Merging the relavant and useful infomation from the episode articles into the main article and the LoE article would improve the two articles greatly, making two decent articles instead of dozens of poor ones. Even if the pilot episode itself is notable (if; I still don't think it is), there are dozens of other articles listed here that are very clearly not. ➪HiDrNick! 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edgarde: Wow, that was rude. OK, I'm saying that a trivial search shows that some of the these articles have both reliable secondary sources and clear notability (awards, etc.). I'm further saying that it seems likely that the nom didn't perform these trivial searches on each of these episodes otherwise he likely would have found them. I'm also saying that doing this is, per AfD directions, part of what should be done before you nominate something for deletion. That the article didn't assert notability is a reason for cleanup not AfD.
Finally, I'm saying that as some of these do have notability and the nom didn't successfully distinguish the notable from the unnotable the whole thing should be kept because there is no sound reason to believe that any particular one is non-notable. It is unreasonable to expect that anyone could find sources for so many things at once. That a fair number have been sourced implies to me that many of the rest could to. If you'd like to toss around further insults, please go to my talk page. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HiDrNick: To answer your question, that they were tagged for a while isn't enough, per policy, to bring them here. A valid reason to bring something here is: "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" not "Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" If you checked around for notability of each of these articles and found nothing, then you did your job. I was questioning if that actually had happened. If so, great. Given that you don't think the things found are sufficent for notability (which I think is factually false as there are clearly non-trivial, independent, secondary sources for some of these) then even if you had searched you likely would have reached the same conculsion. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except main article It is completely absurd to have Encyclopedia articles about individual episodes of a soap. NBeale (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a sitcom. This series is not a soap. It is not continuing, it is not a melodrama in the way a soap is, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. King of the Hill is a long-running and prominent television series, probably important enough to have individual episode articles, like The Simpsons. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate content if reliably sourced to a list of episodes articles, and redirect all articles to the appropriate list. Trivia/"popular culture" sections should be left out entirely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is value in having a complete set. It does not make sense to me to keep some episode articles but not others from the same series depending on arcane wikipedian dogma. Catchpole (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factions: Revenge of the Reich[edit]

Factions: Revenge of the Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No mention after a google search of title, only a few in passing mention of author. No references RT | Talk 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (a I was in the process of tagging), no context, spam. User name of author closelymatches that of book's author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentAlthough my name and that of the author are similar, it is but a coincidence, and there exists no blood relation between us, nor am I him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antcap (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete - few Ghits, no listing on Amazon, and one of the two articles by the same editor about the same subject. More a piece of publicity than a subject for an article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesnt appear to be publicity to me. -Ravichandar 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs to be deleted as per WP:NOT#NOTABLE as a Google search has already been performed and no results have been returned -Ravichandar 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-notable book by non-notable author. No assertion of notability, therefore possibly eligible for CSD:A7. No evidence this book isn't vaporware. Argyriou (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing but wikipedia returned from a google search. No reliable sources. Not even any unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the record, books are not speedy deletable as nn-notable--see WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • when the heck did A7 get rewritten, and how did it end up so clunky? Argyriou (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, default to keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less (band)[edit]

No assertion of significance for this band, I tagged it A7, it was removed. Given links are only to their own website and a very trivial mention on "allmusic", a directory like listing of bands.

The article claims its two albums were released on the Firecode Core label. The article for this company, before it was deleted due to A7, said that this company had release a total of 3 albums from 2 bands. I don't think the release of 2 albums on a minor label demonstrates notability. Sam Barsoom 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn (if I can do that) due to addition of new references. Sam Barsoom 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the original author User:Foot has a remarkably similar moniker to the producer of the band, the "enigmatically-monikered S. Foot" as the article puts it. Sam Barsoom 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've just added references to the article - the band seems to have had plenty of coverage and passes WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, well considering those references I have to agree with the keep idea and withdraw my AfD if I can. I would like to point you to the {{hangon}} template that can be used to postpone a speedy deletion while you get the references ready. I can't help but feel that would have made this AfD unneeded. Sam Barsoom 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hangon templete is for use by the original author of the article if they object to deletion. Any other editor can simply remove the speedy tag if they feel it is inappropriate. I would recommend looking for evidence of notability (e.g. a Google search) before nominating articles for deletion (using whatever method), as a deficient article does not necessarily indicate a lack of notability. Please also refer to the WP:Deletion policy for alternative ways of dealing with articles that have issues (including unclear notability).--Michig (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is the that burden of verification is on the person seeking to include the information. That is what it says at WP:V. If you remove the tag, you should address the problem while you do it or soon after. Removing the tag and leaving it in the state it was tagged in accomplishes little. Just my opinion, not trying to be pushy about it. Sam Barsoom 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, default to keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover, Protective, Individual[edit]

No indication of notability. Only linked sites are to their own producers and photographer. There is no independent source. I am also nominating the band Less (band) Sam Barsoom 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw(if I can do that) due to addition of new sources. Sam Barsoom 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The links to reviews are adequate evidence of independent coverage, which is sufficient for having an article here.--Michig (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Could be merged into Less (band) however.--Michig (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can those links be added to the article like it was for the band? Sam Barsoom 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could do that, or we could merge the album articles into the band article, to avoid duplication.--Michig (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the most sense to me. Sam Barsoom 21:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zeleny[edit]

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

No notiblity, no references. RT | Talk 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a CSD A1 would even do that. No notability, no references, no sources provided – seems an easy call — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - according to his website, he's a session musician. A search through Google news turns up a couple of mentions of his name but insufficient to meet notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A CSD A7 probably would have been sufficient too. SingCal (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of two notable bands and has played with another notable musician. Needs expansion, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs no evidence or even suggestion of notability. NBeale (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol's Convenience Store[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marisol's Convenience Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's just a shop RT | Talk 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7 -- business with no claim of notability in article (I don't count vague claims of opening a chain in a couple of years to be a claim of notability). The single non-wiki ghit is just a directory listing; no sources in article to show notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NN. Just the barest minimum assertion of importance to avoid an A7 speedy. A one-convenience store outfit that might expand in 2 years. Searches came up with only a newsletter from the Texas Lottery profiling its mom-an-pop outlets. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD A7. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Argyriou (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable convenience store. fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, A7 and (maybe) G11. I also suggest a light coat of salt Doc Strange (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a single store with aspirations to become a chain. No reliable sources provided or findable in searching. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. sources was a concern that wasn't met in the AFD Secret account 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washinkai[edit]

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

Non notable karate style. RogueNinjatalk 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I'm not into karate, but a googling seemed to bring up many ghits, some of which would qualify as wp:rs quality. Needs to be tagged for sources, but they seem to be available...after the first 20 or so ghits. Pharmboy (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I would say it's borderline notable since lineage is semi-established (parent style is named, but who taught the founder?) and since it has branches in several countries (albeit without reference). My issue with this the article is that it was created and the only content additions were made by self-described Washinkai British Karate Governing Body 3rd Dan, who hasn't done anything else on Wikipedia [20]. Around the time of its creation, Washinkai was also added into Karate on a number of occasions [21] and [22] (and eventually reverted as spam) --Cubbi (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Those are great reasons for tagging it COI, or fixing it, but not deleting it. If it passes notability (the reason for the nomination to begin with) then it is a matter of tagging and despamming it. You seem to say it is "borderline notable" but want to delete for reasons that indicate it needs improvement only. Pharmboy (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply My point is that if all COI edits were reverted, the article would be gone. Anyway, you're right, I amend myself from Delete to Weak delete, let others decide. --Cubbi (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI doesn't have to be removed, just tagged. Then it can be rewritten using wp:rs that can be wp:v To be honest, there isn't that much that would have to be removed, just the stuff that would qualify as original research. I just edited out the COI stuff (mainly). I think the rest can be sourced out. Pharmboy (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COI is no reason for deletion, but WP:N is. All the GHits are just other random websites. Sole GNews hit is a press release, and the GBooks hits are about an unrelated organisation Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Regular Google stops after ~150 GHits out of the 3,000 because the rest are duplicates. Practically the only independent source is this newspaper article [23]. cab (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the decent sources seem to be in Japanese. Its a specialist area, so I'd like input from someone on the appropriate sub-project before a final decision is made, but on GHits evidence it passes WP:N. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply What japanese sources? The subject of the article is a british organization. The japanese hospital of the same name (http://www.washinkai.jp) is unrelated. --Cubbi (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GHITS is explicitly not a notability criterion. And I second Cubbi's comments; there are no Japanese sources. Based on the quote from the article "Wa - for harmony ... Shin - for heart ... Kai - for group", it should be "和心会" in Japanese; a search for washinkai and karate in Japanese gives 14 GHits [24], while a search for washinkai and wadou-ryuu in Japanese gives zero GHits [25]. cab (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability for this new style. JJL (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs, no evidence of notability or content validity. And says almost nothing - and nothing interesting. NBeale (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Minorities in Greece#Christian Orthodox Slavophones Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavomacedonian[edit]

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

Textbook example of a dictionary definition - and in this case not even of an English word, but of a translated Greek term, Σλαβομακεδόνας. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The nominal subject of the article, the Slavic minority in Greece, is already discussed in Minorities in Greece, so the article seems to be an unnecessary content fork as well. ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the word is used in many English works, without apostrophes. It does not appear in the OED, but then neither do a lot of things. Currently it can broadly be classed as an epiphet, or euphemism for the ethnic Macedonian community in Greece. In the past it was used more freely, and even by members of that same group. There are a non-insignificant number of articles which cover this term, and its change of use makes it more notable than a mere definition. Compare: "Nigger", "Kike", "Chink", "Paki" etc. - Francis Tyers · 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this term does not only encompass the Slavic minority in Greece, but is also used as a generic term for ethnic Macedonians so the statement regarding "already discussed" is not quite accurate. - Francis Tyers · 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a term used in Anglophone academic discourse.--Damac (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is it? "Slav Macedonian" has been used but I'm unsure about this term. BalkanFever 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is used in commentary regarding the Greek approach to ethnic Macedonians. It is typically not used to describe ethnic Macedonians directly. - Francis Tyers · 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, according to a Google Scholar[26]/Google Books[27] search, the term has been used. However, the hyphenated Slavo-Macedonian is far more common in both (former[28] and latter[29]).
        • Perhaps a move would be more appropriate, but Macedonian Slav already redirect to Macedonians (ethnic group). The problem is, of course, how should the article about this minority in Greece be named? How can we differentiate this group from the majority in the Greek part (the subject of two articles, Aegean Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece), reflecting the terms used in different contexts) of the Macedonian region who also self-define themselves as Macedonians?--Damac (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I understand it, the article is meant to be about the term, not about the actual minority, which is explained in Minorities in Greece under the sub-heading "Christian orthodox Slavophones". BalkanFever 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ChrisO is right on this one; this isn't a dictionary, and the term is already treated amply at Macedonia (terminology). ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have similar articles about other ethnic groups, such as this: [30] It is nothing exceptional. I understand why some may find such articles questionable, but since the practice of creation of similar articles exists, I think this one should be kept too. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term and its uses is quite relevant and not just a dictionary definition. Though it could use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP:POVFORK to Macedonians (ethnic group). The subject of the word is the Macedonians (ethnic group), as referred to by the Greeks and some scholars. The term is used mainly for disambiguation purposes (mainly vs the Macedonians (Greek) and the Macedonians (ancient)), but may occasionally be received as "pejorative" without such intent from the speaker necessarily. Those issues should be treated and addressed to in the main article, so as to cover all aspects and all POVs. NikoSilver 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP:POVFORK to Macedonians (ethnic group) per N!.JERRY talk contribs 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep/ For details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto. JERRY talk contribs 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Magneto[edit]

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

This is a non-notable episode that fails to provide real world context with reliable sources. Just so nobody gets confused, the one source provided is using what the episode claims to be based off of to cite what the show was based off of, so it certainly isn't valid. All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD guidelines require that you do a check for posible sources before nominateing. Have you done so?Geni 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I didn't find anything. You're free to look, though. TTN (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive. Your claim in the opening of only one source isn't quite true see. If you will scroll to the end of the article you will see there are a couple of others. Which means that your search was so poor it failed to find sources that were sitting in the article you nominated for deletion. You should probably have also turned up this if only to mention you didn't think it was a valid source.Geni 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fan site not known for its reliable reviews and a blurb of plot summary are not usable sources, so they don't count. If you can show that the site that you brought up is used in general articles, it may work (not on its own though). I'm not going to list every invalid source possible, so there is no point in bringing them up. I just used the only one that was actually cited. TTN (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, and take no offense at this, I'm not inclined to believe you. Are you sure this so-called "search" is THOROUGH enough, or did you just google the name of the vid, look at about 7 words in all the pages, and decide it's not suitable information? I doubt you would done it THAT quick if you did it on the same day. --ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that he was going to bring up this strange logic that I must somehow prove a negative or show that its unlikely when someone can just claim that the search wasn't thorough enough, so I actually looked for usable sources. I didn't find any that would hold an article. TTN (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, MERGE with the other video articles, but don't just wipe it out. This is just a suggestion, okay? (Looks) Hold on, there ARE no other video articles, are there? (Smacks face) Oh well, just DELETE and get it over with, then.--ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it valid to redirect all but 3 episodes, and then cite that redirection as one of the reasons this episode should be deleted? Astronaut (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was to emphasize that the first episode was the only one that currently has any reason to exist. TTN (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't get your way in trying to redirect this episode, so you thought you would try to get it deleted? So, yes, I think you are trying to make a point. Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently no alternative venues for this because Geni just randomly and indiscriminately reverts some of my redirects for some pointy reasons, so there are no people actually willing to discuss (and there is like one editor that even touches these). TTN (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unfortunate, but you are the one continuing with the reverts and AfD for pointy reasons. Why are you SO sure this article must be redirected or deleted that you are conducted a small edit war to try to get your way? In fact, the opinion of more than one editor is that this article should stay, and I suspect that if you had given them the chance, more than one editor would have wanted to keep all the episodes over your redirects. Astronaut (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit war was to keep a user's pointy reverts at bay, not because someone was actually trying to keep the article based upon true merits (he has done this with at least twenty other articles). The one user actually interested in keeping them is fine with working in his sandbox, and any others are just people here just because I am the nominator. If this had been anyone else, the article would still be a redirect or this would be a strait merge/redirect/delete thing. TTN (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geni's comments. And along with the sources in the article, there are books sources: [31], [32]. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are just common names. They have nothing to do with this episode. TTN (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it wrong? The first is a book based on X-Men that seems to be one of those books that help kids learn how to read (at least from comments on another site), and the second is a chapter that is introducing Magneto to the reader. TTN (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first book is fine, and can be used as a reference or in a note section for the plot. The second book mentions the character Magneto, and an episode that "Enter Magneto" was based on, "Uncanny X-Men #1." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode covers the plot summary, which has nothing to do with notability. Can you point out the page and quote for the second one? Even then, that won't really work without someone who wrote the episode stating it, and production notes alone do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean the first one? No, I can't. Also, the production section, reception section, introduction, and infobox seem to provide enough real-world information. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant the quote that you claimed tells which comic the episode was based off of. The production relies upon that same information (the current source is OR) and some OR comparing the two. The reception relies upon a tape. That would be like claiming that every episode of every show out on DVD is notable. The intro applies the same OR sources as the production. The infobox is supplemental. TTN (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am more than a little dissatisfied with the strategies of trying to delete some articles as precedent for deleting others, of trying every method to delete merge or redirect, as long as it loses content, to ask for real world content and then dismiss it as trivial, and especially to ask for sources and then reject whatever is directed as unsuitable. The most logical explanation is an idiosyncratic view that the less coverage WP had of television shows, the better. In fact, this particular episode clearly has notable content and cultural references; a really odd choice for deletion. My comment a couple of items back here shows that I think the content of the show and the article matters--I've said more merges or deletes than keeps on todays batch of episodes. DGG (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section doesn't actually have any reception information, and the production information is just OR. Even if that OR is sourced, it's something that would be better at home on the main article for the show. Fails WP:EPISODE greatly. Redirect for when any of this can get the necessary real-world context to justify an episode article. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete No Reliable Sources as refs - no evidence of validity or notability. It is absurd to have articles on individual episodes of TV series anyway. NBeale (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is specialized encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is true, but Wikipedia is not place for plot recap without real world context. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enter Magneto has real-word context. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "At the height of the series' popularity, Pizza Hut sold two VHS tapes that featured "Night Of The Sentinels (Parts 1 & 2)" and "Enter Magneto"/"Deadly Reunions". Also contained were round-table discussions between prominent names such as X-Men creator Stan Lee and 1990s writer Scott Lobdell."? -- Ned Scott 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Enter Magneto" is an episode in the animated TV series X-Men Animated Series. This episode is loosely based on "Uncanny X-Men #1" (September 1963), where Magneto attacked the Cape Citadel missile base. At the height of the series' popularity, Pizza Hut sold two VHS tapes that featured "Night Of The Sentinels (Parts 1 & 2)" and "Enter Magneto"/"Deadly Reunions". Also contained were round-table discussions between prominent names such as X-Men creator Stan Lee and 1990s writer Scott Lobdell. During Xavier's search for Magneto his tie switched from blue to yellow and back to blue. Cedric Smith played as Professor Charles Xavier, Cathal J. Dodd played as the Wolverine/Logan, Norm Spencer played as Cyclops/Scott Summers, Iona Morris played as Storm/Ororo Munroe, George Buza played as Beast/Dr. Henry “Hank” McCoy, Alyson Court played as Jubilee/Jubilation Lee, Len Carlson played as Senator Robert Kelly, David Hemblen played as Magneto, and Don Francks as Sabretooth/Victor Creed. "Enter Magneto" is the third episode of season one of X-Men Animated Series. It was written by Jim Carlson and Terrence McDonell and aired November 27, 1992. The episode "Night of the Sentinels" preceded "Enter Magneto," which was followed by the episode "Deadly Reunions" Tim Q. Wells (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which could neatly be placed on a LOE, and/or other relevant existing pages. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — As much as it pains me to put an article about Magneto-anything up for delete, seriously, we can't have articles about random episodes. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The review is clearly one independent secondary source. I'm not seeing another though. I didn't do a search though Hobit (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge both to (a) parent('s/s') article(s), then redirect to (either) parent. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Valois (1556)[edit]

Joan of Valois (1556) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable - a stillborn child. No possibility of ever being more than a very brief stub. john k (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating

Victoria of Valois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), her sister, who lived only slightly longer, and is no more notable. john k (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep RT | Talk 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article also fails WP:V, while not a reason for deletion this is interesting since it contradicts facts about the births already contained (and referenced) in Catherine de'Medici. Notability could possibly arise if the deaths had some consequences, if they had changed a succession, for example, but as this is not the case all the details can stay in the parents' articles. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with a parent A child dying in infacny is rarely likely to be notable in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to parent/s' articles per Peterkingiron--Lenticel (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parents' articles, per above. Choess (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Altairisfartalk 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any information not already contained in the parents article, delete the rest. No hope of anything but a stub, no notability at all. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Victoria, a legitimate daughter of a french king is inherently notable. I thought this was the kind of person all encyclopedias had a stub on. Delete and merge Joan of Valois (1556) into that article, as she was stillborn. Greswik (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moller[edit]

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

On the fringes of the Scottish music scene. Not quite done enough ot gor enough publicity to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO Montchav (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by association. Subjects in Wikipedia need to have generated, in and of themselves, significant coverage by reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if he's not notable enough to have been written about by a second-tier source (or have them referenced here by any of the authors), then...he's NN. --Revanche (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The reviews listed on his website don't look very promising as reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of reliable independent sources indicate the subject is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs no verification no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covert hypnosis[edit]

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

None of this is written based on reliable sources, doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree, I two of the books referenced here and it seems accurate. Webhat (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Poorly written article with what might be original research (the cites are books that I don't own...) but the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion. The term itself gets over 50k ghits (none are noted on the page) so this is a matter of the article needing improving, mainly trimming out the fat. As for the nom (nothing personal), it is flawed in that WP:RS says that published books can be used for sources in most cases (which the article uses for sources), and WP:V says that the information must be verfiable and not verified. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hypnosis. A whole article dedicated to this topic may violate WP:FRINGE. The sources being cited aren't exactly reliable, as they're single page citations out of larger books about the occult or hypnotic suggestion. The "further reading" section is entirely advertisements that were probably inserted by their authors, so the verifiability of this article is marginal, at best. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pharmboy. We don't delete badly sourced stuff just because it's badly sourced: that normally happens because of notability concerns about the topic. Here, per Pharmboy, we shouldn't have that concern. The article should at least be given a chance to improve via tagging before we give up on it. Mangojuicetalk 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Civil War[edit]

Galactic Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a synthesis of plot elements taken from the various Star Wars video games, movies, and novels without any assertion of notability through multiple reliable sources. As all of this information is already covered in greater detail in the various articles from which it was culled, this is an in-universe duplication of that information, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT Also, where is this duplicated? RogueNinjatalk 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it without doubt passes WP:FICT. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Star Wars. --EEMIV (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary plot details which are already sufficiently covered in other articles. Also: No reliable, third-party sources available. User:Dorftrottel 20:43, January 23, 2008
  • Keep another run at the strategy of deleting detail articles because they are too detailed, and general ones because they are too general. DGG (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are saying Judgesurreal777 acted in bad faith when s/he nominated the article for deletion. And incidentally, you're not stating any opinion, let alone any rationale, on the article itself. What's more, this AfD is about this article, and this article alone. It can have nothing to do with any other AfDs. If it is actually your primary concern that there is some sinister anti-cruft cabal at work, you should seek out more approriate venues, as you are well aware. User:Dorftrottel 14:11, January 25, 2008
  • Keep. Arguably one of the most, if not the most notable fictional wars every told across multiple works of fictions, including films, toys, video games, comic books, novels, etc. Information can be easily verified, but just needs some additional inline citations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information here is just plot summary an inappropriate for Wikipedia. In the long history of this article, where are the citations to sources that offer a real-world, out-of-universe perspective? I doubt they're out there; contributors to this article haven't met the burden of proof to establish real-world notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:FICT's requirments for inclussion, the article definitely needs some clean up, but it definitely should not be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sith Empire[edit]

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

This article is a synthesis of plot elements from the Star Wars franchise, and has no notability or sourcing to speak of. all of this is covered in the articles covering the Star Wars movies, video games and novels already, so this in-universe repetition of that information is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, Lady_Macbeth(Shakespeare) and pages like it should also be deleted. I don't see any references in there. Its mostly "original research." Right? hahaha. Pages like these are good information and why cause information loss when you can easily fix it? If you're too lazy to fix it, then you shouldn't touch it? Most real admins are willing to put their back into things and fix problems from what I've seen, instead of being lazy and just delete everything. Ssh83 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Do you have anything to say about this particular article, rather than MacBeth and "most real admins"? --EEMIV (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sith. There are plenty of articles on wiki that chronicles fictional settings and stories. While neither pages (sith empire and sith) are big enough to need individual articles, both contain enough unique information that neither should be outright "deleted." A thoughtfully carried out merge should be the best course of action to avoid information loss. Ssh83 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) SSH83[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT Also, where is this duplicated? RogueNinjatalk 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is a flagrant failure of WP:FICT There are no independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the actual articles that this plot information takes place, such as the Star Wars novels and movies. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject in that it is a consistent and recurring theme in the novels and movies. It is interesting in its own right as a subject, not unlike articles like Jedi, Wookiee, and Death Star. Tparameter (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Sith. Unlikely search term with unencyclopedic content. --EEMIV (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you direct me to an agreed definition of "encyclopedic", or discussion on same? I've been quite curious of the underlying issues lately. --Kizor 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources no evidence of notability. And absurd nonsense to boot. NBeale (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect (to Sith): no sources establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk 11:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is entirely a derivative of the Star Wars franchise. This makes it a copyright violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Although there are plenty of reasons to delete this, this article is not a copyright violation. --EEMIV (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is completely derived from copyright material. There is no creative synthesis, commentary, criticism, cross-work comparisons or any other kind of transformation derived either from the authors or from other publication. It is therefore a copyright violation as a derivative work of copyright material. If there were any creative component to the material, without third party sourcing, then those components would be judged to be original research. To avoid these problems, fiction articles are best advised to follow WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sith although I think notability is a close call and I'd not object to a keep. [33]. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nothing here to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article. BLACKKITE 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lake[edit]

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

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation that an overzealous editor gave her own article after rumors began which have since proven false that she was going to replace Jorja Fox on the show. Fails WP:FICTION with no secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Since I'm apparently the "overzealous editor" referred to above, I suppose I should comment. My recollection is that this material, devoted only to describing the character, was inappropriately in the article on the actress. If it was to be in wikipedia at all, it belonged in an article on the character, rather than one one the actress.
I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain. However, I'd like to point out that if projections are correct, the Lake character will become a recurring character on par with the Sara Sidle character, now that Sidle's character is no longer part of the show. If that's the case, and the article is deleted, then if someone puts the article back, a few months of work will be lost and need to be re-created. I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article. But if the decision is to delete this article, I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected. -- TJRC (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote anything reliable that would suggest this is the case? I had a {{fact}} prod on the article for months with no response that someone later removed. I've not been able to find anything reliable which would suggest that the character is going to become a major character and, as it is, the article wouldn't pass WP:FICTION anyway because she hasn't had coverage in secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Per Rumor, "A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences), is 'an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern'" -- TJRC (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE. Redfarmer (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's consistent with what I've said. You: "as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL." Me: "I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article." You: "Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE." Me: "I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected." Are you somehow construing that I'm presenting an argument to keep? Although I have a week opinion toward keep (hence the week keep), I don't really care much: "I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain." -- TJRC (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to quote what you said a few paragraphs up. I'm only trying to understand, if you don't care one way or the other, and if you acknowledge it violates multiple notability requirements, why you are still expressing a weak keep... Per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, this isn't a democratic vote; we decide by consensus based on policy arguments. Redfarmer (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I needed to quote just to juxtapose your own and my comments to point out their similarity, because I wasn't sure why you were arguing with a position that's pretty close to yours. You seem to be confusing my near-apathy with advocacy (you're using phrases like "you admit"), which it very definitely is not.
To address your points: I believe, but not strongly, that the appearance of the character so far is sufficient notability to justify the article. That alone would be a sufficient basis for my week keep. In addition, the suggestion (whose veracity is admittedly uncertain) that the character will appear more, does not lessen that.
I think you misunderstand my comment about lost work. I have not suggested that losing work is a reason to keep an article. I have suggested that losing work is a reason for anyone who strongly believes the article should remain to keep a copy of it, so that if it turns out to be an appropriate article later, they can re-add the lost material.
All that being said, were it not for the writers' strike we'd probably already know what the character's status is. My general sense is, what's the hurry to delete now?
So, all that is the basis for my week keep. You may not agree with it, and I don't expect you to. I'm not making an argument, I'm just explaining to you my basis, since you asked. I'd rather the article stayed around. But I don't really care that much. But you asked. -- TJRC (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should note, per the commenter above's concern that she may still become a major character, she has not appeared in an episode since Jorja Fox left the show, thus making the number of episodes she has appeared in five. Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - with reference to the previous work being lost if this is deleted and a new article is needed - very little that is on Wikipedia is ever permanently deleted. It would be very easy to restore anything here if needed should the decision be to delete at this time with no prejudice to recreation if the character does indeed prove to become a regular feature of the show. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 22 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, Redfarmer (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs no reliable sources no notability - and absurd to boot. NBeale (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability at all. There should be a way of speedy deleting all these non-notable fictional character's articles.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there shouldn't. We need as many eyes as possible to look these over, in case someone knows of information that can confirm notability. I think we speedy too much as it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sky Defunct Channels[edit]

List of Sky Defunct Channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, may be verifiable (although currently unsourced), but is an unencyclopedic collection of information. See this recently closed afd for a similar list. Pastordavid (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is a lot of this in Wikipedia. One example I can cite is the constant addition and deletion of forthcoming channels on the Freeview article. Could much more easily be replicated using categories if the channels articles pass WP:N (though generally licensed channels are inherently notable through past precedents). Lists like this tend to remain unreferenced (even though it is verifiable) and expand more than the EPG articles. Lists like this will become unmanageable and indiscriminate over time. ----tgheretford (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the concerns of the nominator... - no policies or guidelines have been cited as the reasons to delete this list. Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and therefore it has no bearing in deletion discussions. In describing the acceptability of the list's content, "unencyclopedic" is way too vague. Wikipedia itself is unencyclopedic by conventional standards, and is continuously pushing the envelope. The word "unwikipedic" would be more appropriate, but is still too vague - it implies violation of policies or guidelines without specifying them. It's like saying "It's God's will." "Unencyclopedic" just means that it violates Wikipedia's content guidelines in some way -- but you need to show how it violates them, and you haven't. The list contains blue-links to a specific type of article, giving the list value as a navigation aid to Wikipedia content. It also develops the history of Sky Digital, and is therefore an expansion of that subject. It may be of interest to some readers. Just because it is of no interest to you ("listcruft" is relative - one man's trash is another man's treasure) is not a reason to delete it. Verifiability is obvious for the blue links, as it needs to be covered in those respective articles anyways. The verifiability and potential removal of the other items on the list should be discussed on the list's talk page. Keep. The Transhumanist 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Indeed, the fact that it is not interesting to me is not a reason to delete it. By the same token, the fact that it may be interesting to others is also not a reason to keep it. The primary reason to delete, although perhaps not made clear enough to delete, is that this collection on information is not encyclopedic. You may think that an inappropriate term to use in regards to this unconventional "encyclopedia project" we are all working on, but it is precisely the language used by policy -- Wikipedia:DEL#REASON: reasons for deletion: "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." And, as linked to in that sentence on the policy page, WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. So, I will respectfully disagree, I think my nom above does indeed point directly to policy related reasons for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we are to be an encyclopaedia, then Lists are a great place to keep such information. Could easily turn into List Cruft, but well managed it is clearly useful factual information. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article title is a bit misleading, as several channels have just had a name change. It's the whole Marathon/Snickers thing all over again! Lugnuts (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is anything of note it can be included in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just hit it on a Random Page bender, and there are multiple problems. As well as the list of lists issue, we have the thing misnamed (it should be defunct Sky TV channels, at best), and then the fact that it is a list that does not properly or significantly inform by being a list. I.e. a list is a reorganization of material into a tabular format so that the side-by-side visual will make a point or organize the information and give something new. In this case, the only element in common is that Sky used to have these channels: there is no implication that they were all unprofitable, that they were all too fragmented, that they were all politically purged, etc. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was a non-admin keep per WP:SNOWBALL. SorryGuy  Talk  00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pullen[edit]

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

Only 1000 hits on Google, seemingly unnotable subject WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The references in the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. He died in 1992, and therefore would not have the same number of Google hits as someone of comparable notability who is still alive today. --Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can only find article through wikipedia,so expect more will read it when it is on google! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis pullen (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have been a significant racing horse owner of his day, which would allow him to pass WP:N as there are enough WP:RS. Also, apprenticed the young Peter Bromley which both articles should mention. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like Google hits as a standard for notability. We should judge the reliability of sources given in the article as the basis of for WP:NOTE. Dekisugi (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was watching this article from creation, and did consider nominating for deletion. I think there are problems with WP:COI, but there is great potential, particularly with the developer aspect. There was a lot of post-war development that still shapes London today. Add in the racing connections and it's a definite keep - a lot of work needed, but a keep. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources are sufficient. Ghits for a historical figure are irrelevant--nominating on that basis alone does not seem very sensible to me. I suggest a rereading of WP:RS. DGG (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Rose and Purkiss, Keep Turnbull and Parslow per notability requirements for professional footballers. BLACKKITE 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rose[edit]

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

Never played in the Football League or any other "fully-pro" League Jimbo[online] 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail notibility:

Ben Purkiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philip Turnbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniel Parslow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Weak keep Turnbull per appearance in Football League Trophy and Parslow per Wales U21 caps. Delete Rose and Purkiss. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - as per Mattythewhite, I will add Purkiss to the Keep side of the debate in that he played international futsal for his country. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - futsal caps irrelevant - Ben Watson's article was deleted, even though he had International futsal caps. Not valid criteria. Jimbo[online] 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:BIO BanRay 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per added references to reviews. Keeper | 76 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I[edit]

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

Contested prod - author removed the prod without commenting or improving the article. Not notable - Clearly fails WP:MUS. Dawn bard (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time compressor[edit]

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

There's a lot I could say about this article, but I think I'll just say Wikipedia does not publish original research and leave it at that. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete next time use the CSD template RogueNinjatalk 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to crush this one flat. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, no citations. Seems like an idea by someone with poor high school physics education. Agree with all above. Pookakitty (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolean Wejbe[edit]

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

She is a child actress who as a small role on HBO's Big Love. The page currently lists roles she had in small plays, etc. If her small role in Big Love makes her notable enough to warrant a page, then so be it, but outside of that there isn't much. Can't find any news articles about her on google or elsewhere.Gwynand (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - From WP:BIO on the section regarding entertainers, notability requirements -
-With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
-Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
-Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.Gwynand (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatic Network Turistika TV[edit]

Adriatic Network Turistika TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A minor claim to notability (first web tv station in a given area), but does not seem to be enough to satify WP:WEB. Recommend deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web site with low traffic ranking, reads like an advertisement -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep 2008-09 NHL and 2008-09 EHCL season, delete the others, taking into account that the one source at 2008-09 OHL season isn't really about the season, but about a special event. Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 NHL season[edit]

2008-09 NHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing currently that would be able to be written about these future seasons as anything that would happen to affect them this year would be included on the 2007-08 season pages. A number of individual team seasons for 2008-09 recent fell to afd for the same reason. Big case of WP:Crystal can be recreated after the Stanley Cup finals are done which marks the end of 2007-08. (Or that particular leagues championships for the other two leagues I have nominated.) Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too would have the same WP:Crystal issues.:

2008-09 OHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008-09 ECHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009-10 NHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010-11 NHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I wouldn't call the location of the next All-Star Game "unverifiable speculation". Even the reason why the game is being held there is provided. Citations for that are easy to get, but that in itself, is not a reason to delete the article. These are maintenance issues that require a tag that the article does not reference any sources. Incidentally, the ECHL article has been tagged since November 2006, which means it has existed since November 2006. Deleting it now would be incredibly stupid, because it will have to be created again shortly anyway. Nom also missed the fact that there are the 2009-10 and 2010-11 NHL season pages, as well as 2009, 2010, and 2011 in sports. Those should be deleted first before any of the three articles nominated are even up for AfD. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't get those ones because those ones were not brought up in the discussion that occured at WP:HOCKEY. However, I will add them on now. 2009 in sports and 2010 in sports are different because they are talking about events that will be happening in those years. These pages are for statistics/trades that happen during the season. As for the location of the next all star game that can and is covered in its own article. Nevermind the fact that your arguement is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad essay to use in a deletion discussion. Pointing out other articles for consistency is a good argument and cannot be dismissed just by invoking a shortcut. Torc2 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment When the only point of most of their arguement is that others articles of its type exist that I missed nominating then I think it is pretty valid. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment No, the point of their argument is that articles about future years in sports that include real-world information such as dates and locations of major event. 2009 in sports is a fine article even though it's almost a year away. 2008-09 NHL season is no different, just slightly smaller, but more detailed. Torc2 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Placeholders of this kind are completely unnecessary. If a template exists, it's very easy to recreate them once the seasons actually get closer. Redfarmer (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the first, third and fourth articles. All have verifiable real world information. The fact that these will occur in the future is irrelevant (that's why we have tags saying that); there is no speculation, which means WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. The second and fifth articles do not have sufficient real world information and can be deleted. Torc2 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually if you look at point number one of WP:Crystal it does apply. If nothing major can be written about the topic then it is not a valid article. Other than to say the season is happening nothing major can be written about the seasons. And as mentioned before the only real content of the one article with the all star game is already covered on an individual all star game article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Point #1 doesn't even remotely say that.

        "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."

        What in that is violated by this article? If anything, point #1 endorses this article. Torc2 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment 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. I believe they would fall into this example. All that can be said about it is that it will happen. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - "The NHL All-Star Game will be held as the Montreal Canadiens host the event at Bell Centre in February, 2009, to celebrate the Canadiens' 100th Anniversary." It's verifiable. It's not original research. It's not anything like the 2040 Summer Olympics. It's similar to 2016 Summer Olympics. Torc2 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Yes, and until the 2008-09 season is actually here that statement is better suited on 57th National Hockey League All-Star Game. Which leaves this as a redundant and unnecessary place holder as anything other than that won't be applicable until the season is actually here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I've just added the bit about all teams playing eachother again at least once every season, which already negates your argument. It's obvious you made no attempts to improve the page, which is a pre-requisite to AfD. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Season pages are used to list statistics and transactions which will not become available until the season begins so there wasn't really much that I could improve. -Djsasso (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment Only statistics and transactions? I don't think you even looked at this season's page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment Where did I say only? That being said almost everything on that page is a statistic (a record is a statistic) or a transaction or a listing of events happening this season that is in progress. Any league business that happens right now would fall on that season page not on the one up for deletion so you can't write about league business in this article either yet. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment I'm aware that season articles have a lot of info about stats/trades, but you saying there shouldn't be an article because those things haven't happened yet implies that they are only about that. And they aren't. You can't write about league business happening now, but you can write about how it will affect the season, whether changes will be implemented, etc. It just hasn't been done yet. That's what editing, not AfD, is for. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Comment I don't have a problem with 2008-09 NHL season being expanded to a resonable article if there is stuff to write about, however based on the last few afds wiping out next season articles for individual teams it looks like to me that most of the hockey project felt there was nothing that could be written about. However, for the seasons further out than next year, I think its rediculous to keep those. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Comment Actually, the 2009-10 season is already notable for stopping play in February for the Olympics and not having an All-Star Game. That is some relevant, encyclopedic information. 2010-11 should be deleted however, because that's just too far off to anything about it. I support keeping the ECHL one too, but for OHL I couldn't care either way. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all all but the 2010-11 NHL season. There is already verifiable information in these articles. Even if for some reason the seasons do not occur, there would be information about the canceled season, such as occurs with the 2004-05 NHL season article. Nothing is gained by deleting the articles. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion. I have refined my support to not include the 2010-11 NHL season. There is no evidence that planning for this season has started. So, as per WP:CRYSTAL, it should go. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General-Comment I'm not sure what this Afd will decide (I'll respect its choice), but there's no 100% certainty the NHL will continue to exist after this season. I know it most likely will, but let's wait. At least wait until after the 2008 NHL entry draft (if it's held). GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under that logic, we shouldn't have an article like this because there's no "100% chance" that the events will happen. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The threshold for inclusion under WP:CRYSTAL is "almost certain to take place", not absolute certainty. The policy even allows for limited, documented speculation about preparation for the season. Torc2 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I thought deletion would be a foregone conclusion, guess I was wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the creation of these articles is premature. The seasons are likely to take place (if the world does not end), but what will happedn is mere speculation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 NHL and ECHL season pages, delete the rest. In the case of the NHL, there is sufficient information about what is scheduled to take place. The ECHL article refers to franchises that have been awarded. It's hardly premature to write about what the front office and the owners have plans. Folks, surely you don't think they wait until after the Stanley Cup is awarded before they plan for the next season, do you? Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 NHL Season and 2008-09 EHCL, not the others If there are valid reliable sources of information on the upcoming season, that's ok by me. Just the valid info, nothing else. It's only a matter of months away. E.g. announcements of outdoor games, special games, location of all-star games. I disagree with the inclusion of "the season will start in October and finish in April." Pointless. The following years articles are not useful. Alaney2k (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no point in the empty sections either. Comment them out for now. Alaney2k (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 NHL Season and 2008-09 EHCL: And delete the rest. Too early for everything else, but the next NHL seasons is fast approaching. Wouldn't keep the OHL/ECHL upcoming season because there really isn't enough information at this point. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is there not enough information in the ECHL article? There's already quite a bit, and there has been since November 2006. Deleting it now is pointless when it has been there for so long and will soon have to be created again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Thanks for pointing that out. Somehow I overlooked the article, not quite sure how maybe too many firefox tabs. I would say keep the 08-09 NHL and ECHL articles, but after looking at them all (again) I still say delete the OHL one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is all speculation until it happens. An obvious example would be in the 2008-09 NHL season article, which states that Ottawa and Pittsburgh will play in Prague. Nothing has been confirmed of that, and a simple search shows nothing but rumours. A simple search on Google not only shows no actual reports, but also provides more rumours of other teams, namely the Rangers and Tampa Bay, playing, with Stockholm also listed as a proposed venue. There is no basis for any of these articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've deleted the offending sentence. The rest of the information is verifiable. Articles aren't deleted for one bad sentence. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Regardless, I still stand by my vote. When the time comes, we can create these articles. In respect to the offending statment I mentioned, it was more of an annoyance just to see it written once again, after I had deleted it a few days ago. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you still stand by your vote now as the NHL games to be played in Prague and Stockholm has been confirmed, and is properly referenced with verifiable sources? (→Zachary) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Two key statements in the article have been sourced. Torc2 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a reference in the OHL season article that the All-star game will be played in Windsor. So, it does appear to fit #1 of CRYSTAL, since it is almost certain to take place and planning is clearly already taking place. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems odd to me that the complaints are against articles related to hockey leagues but not against leagues of other sports. NorthernThunder (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well thats simply because I work on hockey articles and not on articles of other sports. If I were to work on all sports I probably would never get off the computer. And this nom was just the result of a discussion at the hockey project to put up such hockey articles. That being said I would put any league of any sport up that was far out in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2008-2009 articles, delete the other ones. The next season is certainly not that far in the future, so that it's not much crystalballing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all things like this are planned several years in advance, and talked about several years even before that.DGG (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 NHL season as the only one with any meaningful, referenced information within it, and delete the rest. They can always be recreated later when there's actually something to say about them. Terraxos (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 NHL season since there is much that can be written about it, for example that it will open in Stockholm and Prague. --Krm500 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008-09 Articles You may be thinking that 2008-09 is too far in the future, but it is currently 2008. That means this is happening this year. And it's already collecting a lot of buzz (about the NHL season at least), with the games being played in Stockholm and Prague. And these are sourced properly. (→Zachary) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denton Technology School[edit]

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

Delete NN school. No relevant GHITS found Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any references to this school existing. Nothing on edubase, etc. Article claims it's only existed since Sept, but surely there would be some web coverage of it somewhere, esp in the Tameside local press. Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weal keep - This is a high school. The consensus that these are notable. As it has only just started its second term, it is not surprising there are few sources on it yet. The article is a stub and tapped as such. I would have hoped that the article would mention what schools it replaced. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think it shouldnt be, conesensus is that high schools are notable RogueNinjatalk 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be a consensus that high schools are presumed notable, but that presumption is grounded in the idea that it will always be possible to find reliable sources for any high school. Surely, in cases where no reliable sources can be found, the presumption falls over. Mayalld (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can verify that it exists. It's not on the local council's list of state schools [34], and the Independent Schools' Council, which represents nearly all independent schools in the UK, doesn't know about it [35]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my standards, specifically it has not been open at least 2 years, so that it can be verified and judged on its own merits. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with deletion, but what have your standards got to do with it? Wikipedia's standards (in this case WP:V), are what matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted already by User:Starblind as attack page. non-admin closure SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinten Theodore Pollock[edit]

Quinten Theodore Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as perWP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile ecosystem[edit]

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

This cites no sources and appears to be an essay or original research. It was PRODded for those reasons; the author responded with an {{underconstruction}} tag, so the PROD was removed by an admin who said "re-prod after a week if thought appropriate". Two weeks on, the article has not been changed. Looking at the internet, the term is bandied around a good deal, but it seems more of a buzz-word than having any consistent meaning, and I don't see sources that might form the basis of an article. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Google shows a lot of pages on "mobile ecosystem"s, but I agree with the nominator that it's more a buzz-word than anything else. There's the possibility that this concept is notable, but right now there's no assertion of notability, no sources, and really no clear value. Not opposed to recreation, but it needs some reputable sources to show that the subject is more than a buzzword. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - FrankTobia seems to have covered it all. I agree. Tim Ross·talk 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of the appearances of a very minor band from the Star Wars universe. The one reference is an encyclopedia that only has plot information, which does not assert notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable aspect of the Star Wars trilogy (the cantina scene is one thing even the most casual viewers seem to remember), with plenty of additional notability from the expanded universe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is the nominator arguing that the subject being covered by an encyclopedia is not sufficient evidence that it's of encyclopedic notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable, secondary sources, and this article has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep five sources now Will (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources. If RSs talk about plot, then so can we. DGG (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was a non-admin keep per WP:SNOWBALL as automatic notability has been established. SorryGuy  Talk  23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarset[edit]

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

No links. Nothing to signify importance. Metal Head (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Doesn't a parish count as a geographic location for purposes of automatic notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Towns/villages/settlements are inherently notable regardless of size. "No links" is not a reason to delete an article but simply to add links (as I just did with Google Maps [36] and some rail history [37]). --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot think of a rason to delete this article. As Oakshade said this is a geographic feature and should not be deletedregardless of size. --Tainter (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Theres a fair bit of information on a google search for Tarset+Northumberland Willy turner (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no need to even think about whether villages are inherently notable. There are loads of sources to establish notability at Google books as well as the Google web search results found by Willy Turner. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Bryant and Sodje., no consensus on HowardSecret account 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bryant[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of playing in a fully professional league, only semi-pro Jimbo[online] 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the fail to meet notification:

Charlie Howard (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Onome Sodje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jimbo[online] 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Howard as having played in the Football League Trophy. Delete Bryant and Sodje. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bryant & Sodje Unsure about Howard - are FLT appearances considered notable by the project? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would consider the FLT as relevant as the FA Cup for notability for professional players. Peanut4 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding up of hands I started the Bryant page,unaware at the time of the notability guideline, but it the belief that it looks odd to have one or two names in the squad list template that are unlinked when the vast majority are. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bryant and Howard, Keep Sodje. BanRay 10:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you saying that Sodje should be kept? He hasn't played in a fully pro league either......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZX-Poly[edit]

ZX-Poly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, The article is about a cloned computer that doesn't actually exist. According to the website that is linked to the article, the creator has written an emulator for it but that is all, no physical device actually exists it is just conceptual idea. X201 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not meet WP:V The article has one personal link as prof that it even exists. Very close to even being a WP:Hoax--Pmedema (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How I wish this was notable, but very very few hits and even the more popular Spectrum fan sites seem unaware of the ZX Poly. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with ZX Spectrum. MSGJ (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing wrong with having an article about a conception or whatever else (the X-Seed 4000 doesn't exist either). What matters is notability, which as it stands now, this article doesn't meet. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - shows no evidence of notability due to lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources. Guest9999 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Hare (musical)[edit]

Burke and Hare (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical. Article is unreferenced; fails WP:NOTE and WP:V. Prod (and prod2) removed without comment. Precious Roy (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertions of current notability. Performing at a 2009 festival is crystalballism. DarkAudit (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it is performed at the finge festival next year as it hopes to be, it still won't be encyclopedically notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, poorly written.~~
  • Delete high school musicals, other than High School Musical are not notable. JuJube (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The way it's worded and the quotation leave a little taste of advert in my mouth as well. SingCal (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unanimity that this club has insufficient notability for a separate page. I will merge the content to the parent article as a post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers Aerospace Club[edit]

Searched "chalmers aerospace club" on Google and did not return any notable results (they were mostly Wikipedia and reposts of Wikipedia). Fails WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Eire[edit]

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

Musical act, no sourcing, does not appear to be properly notable. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Every so often there'll be an article that I'm fully prepared to vote keep for, but then find myself changing my mind because when I goto look for reliable sources to back up the notability I think they have, the sourcing just isn't there. This is one of those times. They're fairly well-known as an Irish hip-hop act, and indeed did open for U2 during the Zooropa tour, although it seems to have been at a single Dublin show, it wasn't like they toured together or anything. Maybe someone will come up with sourcing and rescue this one, but I'm stumped and must reluctantly say delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Starblind, as it lacks WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It seems that Irish Hip Hop doesn't have a lot of coverage, but there is an article about them in HotPress [38] which appears to cover the Irish music scene. They were previously signed to Island records. The article is quite new, so given that one article was found in cursory search, and they appear to have had something of a 16-year career, there is a good possibility that other reliable sources could be found. I've tagged the article as unref and think giving this article some time so sources could be found would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept. Non admin closure. Redirecting should be discussed on the talk page if necessary, as some have opposed that suggestion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Opdyke[edit]

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

College professor, with one published book as co-author. Does not appear to meet notability standards at this time. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google Scholar link provided by Eastmain shows a very high level of citation for several books/papers by this author, and his work appears to have been key to the development of the subject of code refactoring, per our article. Passes my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge with the subject he studies; he is notable individually. Many articles on academics are written carelessly, and they should be checked before nominating for deletion. (I will admit though, that this is about as careless as i have ever seen it. ) DGG (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete & redirect. Mangojuicetalk 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dragon[edit]

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

Fictional television character, who on his own does not appear notable. Lawrence Cohen 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect - Article already take care of with Gigglesnort Hotel. Redirect to there. No need to have the extra stuf attached to it.--Pmedema (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Clifford[edit]

Jim Clifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Non-notable local official, eligible for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians WWGB (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems a nice enough chap, but currently no reliable evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete City councilpeople do not meet notability standards for politicians without significant news coverage. Such does not seem to be the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local councillors are seldom notable. RMHED (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan white[edit]

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

Contested prod about a 5 year old tennis player who is claimed to be "considered by many to be a top junior prospect". No evidence provided that this subject has yet achieved any events of encyclopedic note or generated enough press to allow for a neutral verifiable article. --Allen3 talk 12:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wish her all the luck but her news coverage seems to amount to a couple "community focus" news stories which don't satisfy the criteria in WP:BIO for athletes, which is the claim to notability. Redfarmer (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Red, I wish good luck for this talented child, and I hope that she can have both success and a happy childhood. Maybe, like Andre Agassi, she'll go from talented kid to championship adult. Until such time, however, all we know is that she has recognized potential. If she gets magazine articles about her, bring the article back. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy delete. Firstly, the general precedent for athletes is to keep only those who have competed at a fully professional level. Secondly, while the article itself is pretty nebulous about what exactly makes her so special, this edit summary reveals that "She was tested repeated at all levels and was said to have had the mechanics and timing of the average 10 year old junior player at the age of 5". Now, I'm not saying that isn't an accomplishment, but to expect an encyclopedia article for it is pretty ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete due to G3- pure vandalism and somewhat G11- blatant advertising. No notability whatsoever, just an obnoxiously large picture of a little girl and mention of the fact that she is pretty good at tennis.Gwynand (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this was vandalism but rather a good faith attempt by someone not familiar with our notability requirements to introduce a biography on the girl. Now, judging by the comments I got on my talk page, this may or may not be WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Alright I'll strike that through, change from Speedy delete to delete as it doesn't obviously fit the csd criteria.Gwynand (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's obvious from what has already been mentioned before that this article has serious COI issues, along with a serious lack of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Gwynand is right about the over-the-top display of this young lady's photograph. Please note, friends of Morgan, that obnoxiously large refers to putting a poster-sized snapshot in an article. Nobody has anything mean to say about this little girl; she's just not ready yet to have her biography on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock2Wgtn[edit]

Rock2Wgtn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"The first Rock2Wgtn Festival will be held in 2008." That sounds like spam to me. -- RHaworth (Talk

  • Delete. Notability is not inherited and, though this concert has recruited some big name musical acts, that does not make the concert itself notable. To be notable, the concert itself has to gain significant secondary news coverage of its own, as Live 8, Vans Warped Tour, Ozzfest, and Lollapalooza have done. Redfarmer (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spam??? As far as things go down under, this is notable. New Zealand and Australia may be far, far away from Europe and the US and not attract the big events that are continuously on show but occasionally big things like this happen there. The Big Day Out happens once a year and is unheard of outside of NZ/Oz but it has a page. And now a concert twice the size and attracting arguably bigger names than the BDO ever has is and you don't want it mentioned? There are numerous references from numerous sources that show that it is a notable event. If you Google either the BDO or Rock2Wgtn you won't find any info on them apart from the .com.au or .co.nz sites because they are hardly known about in the US or Europe. Notable does not mean that is is notable in just the US/Europe. Notable means that it is of note to a significant community, namely the entire populations of New Zealand and Australia. To reply to your comments about Vans, Ozzfest & Lolla these concerts are US/Europe events and only relevant to them. It could stand to reason that these are not notable because they do not have any note to the populations outside of the US/Europe. Smaunsell (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the job of the article to assert notability. If you think it is notable, quote your sources. Right now, you're saying keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and accusing others of Americancentrism and Eurocentrism in violation of WP:AGF. Quote your sources showing why the concert itself is notable per WP:N and we'll consider it. Redfarmer (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smaunsell in that Rock2WGTN is a significant and notable event. Give the Wiki community time to develop the article. Google lists more than 21,000 reference to a simple search on Rock2WGTN so it's a notable event to plenty of people. Since when was "sounds like spam" regarded as thorough research for deletion? Sounds like a poor effort to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.3.20 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bastards (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There is no reason to keep this page. Everything in it can be mentioned on the page Bastard, as this is an extremely short disambiguation page. So delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Disambiguation is cheap, especially when the page isn't in the way of any other page. Abolishing it would mean expanding the disambiguation template at the top of Bastards from one item to four items - enough to create a disambiguation page. Since bastard=/=bastards when it comes to topic names, merging this disambiguation page into the existing disambiguation at Bastard would serve only to confuse whilst increasing the size of an already long list. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Redvers. Four items is more than enough for a disambiguation page, and bastard is very long as it is.--Cúchullain t/c 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's six items now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Question: do disambiguation pages go here, or to Miscellany for Deletion? At any rate, brevity is not necessarily cause to delete a disambiguation page, which are brief by design; being useful is enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first Bastards article that was written has now been added to the list (I will now be fixing the broken links that moving the page created.--Alf melmac 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I remember correctly you reverted the move I made several months ago. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, and I did consider doing so again today, as why should I have to go fix what someone else breaks? - See my recent contributions - all the "fix links" was becuase of the page move.--Alf melmac 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to worry about me, next time I move a page, I will make sure there aren't too many pages linked to it first, I promise. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you all saying that this nomination sucks? Is that what you all mean? Because I thought I was doing the right thing by nominating this, I mean, I have noticed that extremely many disambiguation pages get merged. So are you all guys saying that this nomination sucks? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we're (well, I'm) saying, having read your nomination, that I don't agree that the dab page should be deleted. Nothing more should be inferred beyond what is written. Sometimes people agree with you, sometimes people don't. Sometimes all people don't. But it doesn't mean the nomination sucks, just that folks don't agree with the reasoning. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't see a reason why it can't stick around. It is very specific that it is the plural of the word and that they (singular/plural) are considered different based on what links there are to them.--Pmedema (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess this is one time where the Bastards do win? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the above that Bastard is already an extremely long disambiguation and adding the plural to it would only burden it further and make it harder to navigate. Redfarmer (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because (1) disambiguation pages aren't articles, so ArticlesForDeletion is the wrong place and (2) it has three dab'able terms and is therefore a valid disambiguation page. Note that I have cleaned up this page per MOS:DAB a few minutes ago, leaving only three+one terms. – sgeureka t•c 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation articles are articles. They live in the main article namespace. And the appropriate venue for discussing their deletion is AFD. Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Critchley[edit]

Laura Critchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sometimes I (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, from what I can see... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Weather Service[edit]

Ontario Weather Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged for AfD a few days ago, but not followed through. I removed the tag and cleaned up the article, but have been unable to find any reliable, third-party sources for it. It does exist, clearly, but of the first 5 pages of a Google search, there is nothing but forums, linkfarms, advertising and YouTube videos - nothing independent or talking about the site itself. The only exception is a bare mention on the National Weather Service's website, but this is also just a link, not any form of commentary. So I'm proposing we delete the article as lacking notability for inclusion. People may wish to refer to the previous version before I cleaned up, which had a rambling, referenceless history of the site which I removed. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the deletion. This "Ontario Weather Service" article here in Wikipedia was written as an advertisement. To me I think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. In encyclopedias, factual definitions are given not advertisements for products and services. Socalweatherbuff (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as failing WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Altairisfartalk 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N, no third-party reliable sources. Hut 8.5 07:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted, CSD#G3. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas (film)[edit]

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

Likely hoax - unable to find any reference to film via Google. Considering the film purportedly involved Robert Zemeckis, Roger Birnbaum, and several "A" list actors, references to it should be plentiful. Majorclanger (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keppler[edit]

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

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 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, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:11, 27 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, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 January 2008


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

The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFX markets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI.Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom, delete. User:Dorftrottel 11:16, January 22, 2008
  • Cleanup. Article is poorly written, but Google/Google News searches indicate enough non-trivial WP:RS coverage to pass WP:CORP. As for WP:COI, the author's edit history is narrow but inconclusive per AGF. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe I'm missing something, but neither of the citations on the page seemed to link to a mention about IFX, although the linked websites were about currency trading in general. What am I not seeing? Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is product placement and may be part of a concerted effort by people involved with forex software - see the ongoing deletion review here. Several articles promoting "eToro" software have recently been placed by SPAs, possibly sockpuppets. andy (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Secret account 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Solo[edit]

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

No real-world notability has been established since the article's creation in January 2003. The article is essentially another fictional biographical account compiled from plot summaries. Also, there is a far more appropriately placed well-written and in-depth article on Wookieepedia. User:Dorftrottel 10:13, January 22, 2008 10:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep but stubify - Star Wars fans' voting for his "Darth" name I think is sufficient for inclusion...somewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - even nugget of info about "Darth ___" vote is insufficient to sustain article. Would be appropriate to include in List of... --EEMIV (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:FICT for lack of real world WP:RS comment. Beyond the Darth Who? contest mentioned above, my searches found one critic's opinion about the Darth Caedus story line. Everything else comes from the plot. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There must be a character list he could be merged to, or at least have these one-two facts put on that list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major character in best-selling series of novels and comics. I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites. Barring keep, should at least be merged into List of minor Star Wars characters rather than deleted outright. Same as with Jaina Solo. Powers T 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources or evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment On further thought, the best option might be to merge Jacen, Jaina and Anakin Solo into the single article Solo family, with only a limited amount of information on each. I possibly should have proposed that instead; but I certainly don't think we need an extensive article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LtPowers. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a majority vote. Also, although LtPowers doesn't accept this yet, his argument is one for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
      • Nonsense. I said they're hard to find, not impossible. I frankly don't have time to sort through search results looking for needles in haystacks every time an AfD pops up to set a 7-day deadline on finding sources. Main characters of best-selling novel series are presumptively notable; absence of sources is cause for improvement, not deletion. Powers T 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they're not presumptively notable. If a character is going to have an article that stands alone from source material, an assertion of that character's separate notability -- not inherited from notable source material -- needs to articulated and substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense, LtPowers. You're voting keep in what ostensibly is a discussion, and your "rationale" is actually an argument for deletion. Please come up with any reliable, third-party source to verify notability, or alternatively please accept that this article should not exist on Wikipedia. It's as easy as that. User:Dorftrottel 13:25, January 24, 2008
          • If the situation was as clear-cut as you insist, we wouldn't need AfD discussions, would we? I never used the word "vote", and I'm not the one trying to strongarm my position in lieu of actual discussion. What I'm saying is that due to the character's position as a major character in a best-selling series of novels, notability can and should be presumed while sources are found -- a task made difficult by a preponderance of non-reliable sources referring to the character. How you see that to be an argument for deletion is baffling. Powers T 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For all relevant purposes, non-existent and untraceable sources have exactly the same value here: none. If you actually did your best looking for reliable third-party sources, and if that search didn't yield any results, the logical consequence should be for you to assume that those sources do not exist. Either that, or you should keep looking if you would like this article to be kept. But coming here and throwing in a barring keep, speculating on the existence of good sources, is a complete non-sequitur. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
              • Unfortunately, I have not done my "best looking", nor do I have the time to keep looking. Thus my argument that the article (and Jaina Solo) should be kept -- under a quite-reasonable presumption of notability for major characters in best-selling series of novels -- while further searching goes on. You're free to disagree that such presumption is reasonable, or that the article should be kept while sources are found (that's why we have these discussions, after all), but views with which you're disagreeing are not inherently unsupportable. Powers T 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in a notable series RogueNinjatalk 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the character were notable, reliable third-party sources shouldn't be hard to find. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
      • That doesn't necessarily follow. As I noted above, sources are hard to find due to a large amount of fan-generated material cluttering the results. Powers T 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're saying that reliable sources might exist, but they can't be found? User:Dorftrottel 14:55, January 23, 2008
          • No, I'm saying they're hard to find. I'm tiring of my words being twisted to sound less reasonable than I intend. Powers T 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites." — Those are your words. You "suspect". In other words: You are speculating that such sources exist, but you do not know. There's no need to twist your logic any further. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
              • I was referring to your "can't be found" clause. Don't you get tired of these semantic games? Powers T 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, and thanks for asking, but I can't seem to afford it since you seem not to get tired of not seeing the essential flaw in your reasoning. User:Dorftrottel 07:36, January 25, 2008
                  • I see the flaw in what you think my reasoning is. Does that count? Powers T 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, more or less. If you can accept that there is no significant difference between your reasoning and what I think your reasoning is, you're almost there. User:Dorftrottel 03:10, January 26, 2008
        • Material added/restored to the project needs to be substantiated by verifiable sources; the burden is on editors who want to add/restore material to provide that verifiability. The editors of this article haven't -- whether that's because the sources don't exist or are just hard to find doesn't particularly matter. They're not there, the article's content is unreferenced, and needs to the axed/trimmed to what can be substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I could agree to a stubbifying and/or merging approach, with the important qualification that each and all unverifiable material must be removed. User:Dorftrottel 14:58, January 23, 2008
  • Keep This is actually just the same as what the nom says just above, because the fictional work itself is an accepted source for the details, and therefore everything here should be verifiable. Any general conclusions can come from the many works about the overall subject that will discuss the connections. major continuing characters in major series are best handled by separate articles. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that there should be at least some real-world context, not simply a plot summary of the character's appearances written up like a biography. The plot details are of course easily verifiable, but primary sources and in-universe/plot information alone are not sufficient. If no sources can be found to incorporate and verify any real-world information, then the article should not exist. In that case, I would still strongly argue deletion, or at least merging into a list of characters, or into Solo family. User:Dorftrottel 09:59, January 25, 2008
are you saying keep then, and propose to then discuss a merge on the talk page.? DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of right now, I don't see any real-world information as verifiable through reliable sources, so I'm still leaning to delete. User:Dorftrottel 03:10, January 26, 2008
  • The only half-way reliable news mention I could find is here. I doubt any serious real-world content can be built on that, and I really really believe we should not have articles that are pure plot summaries based on only primary sources. User:Dorftrottel 09:25, January 26, 2008

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2006/10/16/star_wars_readers_to_name_next_sith_lord/7402/

I'm glad when people agree with me, but they can help even more by adding to it. I doubt I have exhausted the possible keep arguments. I think, though, there no need to comment adversely. Admins know by and large how to close AfDs.DGG (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly what in this article is not verifiable? Powers T 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plot summary is verifiable -- but plot summary is insufficient to sustain an article. Citing WP:V may even be jumping the gun, since there is not real-world, third-party, out-of-universe information that needs verifying -- because this topic is not notable enough to warrant such attention. --EEMIV (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a relevant character list. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Major character in a number of books, but less on-line than I'd have expected. I know next to nothing about this, but added a few references at the end of the article. There must be a "star wars reviewed" book out there that discusses him, but until someone finds it, I'm on the weak keep side. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What exactly speaks against deleting the article for now? A more comprehensive version of the "material" is included in the Wookieepedia article, and there's no prejudice against recreating the article here iff reliable, third-party sources can finally be found, which may be real soon now. User:Dorftrottel 12:29, January 29, 2008
  • Keep. Article asserts notability ("a major character in several Star Wars novels" and "eldest son of Han Solo and Leia Organa Solo"--two of fiction's most well-known characters) and provides evidence as well that should be converted to inline citations. I'll see if I can make some additional improvements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary sources to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Extremely detailed and informative article about fictional character from major sci-fi universe. However, this person is never mentioned in the mainstream media because he doesn't actually exist. Therefore, all traces must be erased from Wikipedia, before we run out of space. 70.89.1.145 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published information about this character can be found, eg from this Star Wars Encyclopedia that has information on Star Wars characters. Bláthnaid 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Star Wars Encyclopedia is has an in-universe perspective; it does not provide the real-world commentary and information required for a Wikipedia article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Article to be renamed to reflect content. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's in the media[edit]

Alzheimer's in the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar to trivia sections Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:Trivia sectionsCs california (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete split off trivia section. No sources available to verify discussion of the specific phenomenon of Alzheimer's in the media. User:Dorftrottel 10:17, January 22, 2008
    • Amending to merge per Pwnage8. However, only material that can be verified through reliable sources should be salvaged. User:Dorftrottel 23:52, January 22, 2008
  • Merge with Alzheimer's disease under #Cultural references. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename (the author probably fears, understandably, that "in popular culture" is Wikipedia code for "please delete this"). Characters who are becoming senile have been seen already, such as Don Ameche as Tom Selleck's dad in Folks. As the elderly population increases, and there are more Alzheimer's patients and caregivers, the trend will be toward even more films and TV shows where it's a plot point. Hollywood hasn't yet given us reason for "Broken hip in popular culture" or "Incontinence in fiction" Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wikipedia doe not allow trivia sections with misc facts see: Wikipedia:Trivia sections --Cs california (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Pwnage8. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough material. To split off a trivia section as worth a separate article and then to delete does not strike me as a desirable way of proceeding. Sources can easily me added. DGG (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider that such sources need to specifically discuss dispositifs of Alzheimer's. User:Dorftrottel 15:02, January 23, 2008
  • Keep: It was me the author of the page. It was removed from the alzheimers page as a way of reducing the main article, but there is enough material to keep by itself. At the same time I think the topic can be both interesting and useful. Of course references should be provided--Garrondo (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has sources to demonstate that this is a notable subject - I just added a couple more myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe a good idea is only to leave in the list only those entries with alzheimer as a critical feature of the main plot. Therefore a lot of trivia would be avoided: I believe a list of films portraying alzheimer its useful as encyclopedic reference while it is not useful at all to list any kind of document where alzheimer appears. --Garrondo (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic, can be covered independently from main article. Everyking (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be created again soon if it is deleted - it's actually been discussed in Talk and is needed to work from. I propose a rename to 'Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimer's disease' (per the Featured Article on Autism). It will eventually become a strong and long article - and the main Alzheimer's page is getting quite large (and has simply reached the stage where splitting is starting to occur). Autism has around 10 dedicated side pages (many link from words in the paragraphs). This one is needed so we can get future info into it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a rename will be necessary, for "...in the media" gives the impression as in the news media, which is not what is intended. Which ones should be included can be discussed at the article talk page. We do now more or less agree how to handle this sort of articles--almost all proposed for deletion in the last month or two here have been kept. DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WaveStreaming[edit]

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

Advert for a Shoutcast server provider written by James Mulvany, one of its key people. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. What makes it particularly bad is the rather sophisticated wikification and formatting of the page (including inline citations and an infobox) with the apparent intention to create wikicredibility. User:Dorftrottel 10:31, January 22, 2008
  • Delete per nom. Advert. Optimale Gu 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Cursive Memory[edit]

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

Non-notable band which doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BAND. CSD declined on the grounds that signing to a notable label is an assertion of notability. WebHamster 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this band's article has been speedied 3 times since August 2007. --WebHamster 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Sector Authority[edit]

Corporate Sector Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article lists a lot of "references" that do not appear to assert any notability for the article; some of them appear to be Star Wars novels, and others are fan encyclopedias, which do not count as secondary sources. And as such, it has not demonstrated notability and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to notability and reliable sources concerns of nominator, the page is also written from an in-universe perspective. RJC Talk 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An encyclopaedia most definitely does count as a source. We even have a citation template, {{cite encyclopedia}}, for such things. The contention that there are no reliable sources is far from proven. Indeed, there are in fact three non-fiction sources cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, as I have told you and others many times, it is the responsibility of those who would keep material on wikipedia to prove its notability, not the other way around. And there is no evidence that any of those books are actually cited in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No evidence that they are cited? Rubbish! The citations are right there in the References section. And no, the burden for demonstrating notability is not that one-sided. As stated in Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, you are required to look for sources yourself as well, to see what sources exist. You haven't. Handily, the article cites three already. You're simply blithely ignoring them, and now even outright claiming that they aren't there, despite the evidence of your own eyes when you read the article. Don't be surprised if you find that you don't make a convincing case for deletion that way. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are fan sites, novels, and fan encyclopedias do not count as reliable secondary sources, so they basically aren't there, your right. Therefore, if they don't count, there are no references that establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep. Personally I've never heard of it, and I'm not even slightly interested, but it does seem to be mentioned in several Star Wars books. Are these independent of the source? I'd say 'no', in which case they don't count for establishing notability. (How can an encyclopaedia be classed independent, or 'non-fictional' if it deals entirely in a fictional world's subject matter!?) However, it also appears briefly on other on-line encyclopaedias and sites and is mentioned in passing in an on-line dictionary source. Enough? :/ I'm not convinced. But I'd err on the side of 'very weak keep', at least until WP:Fiction is resolved. The Zig (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In-universe, and real-world notability not established. The sources in the article can imho not be regarded as fully independent third-party sources, since they deal only with the Star Wars universe and provide no substantial, peer-reviewed analysis of any real-world aspects. Such "encyclopedias" as mentioned are in fact tie-in product, regardless of any direct (financial) ties to the copyright holder. User:Dorftrottel 10:25, January 22, 2008
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to The Han Solo Adventures - Uncle G's "non-fiction" sources are simply an amalgamation and presentation of fictional plot lines. The CSA is prominent only in Daley's Han Solo books and in the corresponding CSA sourcebook from West End; it is a background piece elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that the sources can be dismissed as fan and tie-in product is empty because most sources are intended for those with an appetite for the material that they contain. Academicians are fans of their subject and have a vested interest in it too. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Can you point toward an academic or any other reliable source who's provided out-of-universe information about this topic? If not, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources already provided seem reliable and adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Inclusion in an indiscriminate lists of acronyms (thefreedictionary) and fictional governments (open encyclopedia) -- neither of which provides more than the name -- and Wikipedia mirrors (123exp-art and wizards.pro) are hardly sources at all. They do nothing to establish notability, and don't even provide any information. --EEMIV (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Straw men. These are not the sources you are looking for. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—the references used by the article are not independent of the source and are thus not sufficient to establish notability. The links provided by Zig are entries in a list with no description and articles adapted from Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, or something else unsatisfactory. I spent a little time doing a Google search and came up with wikis and fan sites—nothing that seemed useful as a secondary source. Thus, I must conclude that the article is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and appears unlikely to be expanded to contain out-of-universe material verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Pagrashtak 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment just to back up what Pagrashtak says, I spent a while googling this before, and those few links I put up were EVERYTHING I could find that might count as independent sourcing, and frankly they're unimpressive. The first are unedited, and looking again, I just noticed that this one is also directly derived from WP. So really it comes down to one dictionary cite for an acronym of CSA. To me that seems trivial, but it is undoubtedly an independent cite. Does that do it?! I'm unclear. I'm certainly not against deletion here. If people decide it should be deleted, by all means do it. However, as it has had some work put into it - especially so far as SW-dependent sources to prove its accuracy - could it perhaps be merged into something? I'm really not a Star Wars fan, so I can't say. The Zig (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there are 3 books being cited that aren't fiction. I'm not clear which ones of those you think aren't valid. I'm no Star Wars person, so I don't have a clue either, but it looks like this is reasonably well sourced. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those "reference" books take an in-universe approach to the material; it's simply rehash of plots presented elsewhere in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep as sourced adequately. But that " fan encyclopedias" aren't RSs is a novel theory. It's wrong of course, because one could say that of every subject encyclopedia: an encyclopedia of history wouldn't show notability for articles on history. DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll add this; fan encyclopedias are just repetitions of the plot of the subject at hand, and do not add any information, such as concept and creation, reaction, or any other information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't know anything about these these encyclopedias, such things often do add quite a bit beyond what was in the show. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems well sourced. I would really like page numbers for some of these books though. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of the sources substantiate an assertion of real-world notability. There is no out-of-universe commentary on this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect there is, but don't have access to them. Do you? Hobit (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DGG and Uncle G, amongst others. The logic that an enyclopedia isn't enough is ridiculous; heck many GAs/FAs are written from sources dedicated to the subject matter (since few newspapers discuss Age of Mythology, for instance...). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All those "encyclopedias" offer is a regurgitation of in-universe plot summary from other texts. They do not provide any real-world content or context, nor assert any real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 11:40, 31 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 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Snyder[edit]

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

I originally tried to fix this article after hearing about its inaccuracy on a different site, but after looking into it I just can't seem to find much to indicate notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (the entire article is based on his bio on Gateway's own website). Not even his date of birth can be sourced without paying $10 to access a database of corporate directors. As far as I can tell, he was an interim CEO of Gateway for a few months, and now heads a couple of companies which probably don't rate articles themselves. If someone can add some evidence of notability, please do. Otherwise, this should be deleted for failing WP:BIO. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 07:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - his notability in the media, and hence a majority of the WP:RS, is based around his period as interim CEO. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chairman or CEO of a major company is notable. How long he has been in the position is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked all over before I posted this but couldn't find a guideline to support that. I think a CEO of a major company could be notable, but that would still be based on the idea that he's likely to have been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As far as I can tell, he hasn't. And, since he isn't the CEO anymore, he's not likely to get more expansive coverage at this point. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - without much effort I was able to include multiple references, so I guess he is notable. Addhoc (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction weapons and vehicles[edit]

Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction weapons and vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Detailed non-notable trivia about a game. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This information belongs on a fansite, not in an encyclopaedia. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 11:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a gameguide, GameFAQs is thattaway. Someoneanother 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Wikipedia is not the place for extensive lists of weapons and vehicles in a video game, such as one would find in a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. The article would be suitable for transwiki to a gaming wiki or strategy guide wiki if someone desires. Pagrashtak 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or Delete I would hate to see all the infomation go away, as this definitely deserves not to be here. Should be moved to a game wiki. Talk! 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [39] --Cs california (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm going to consider this a deletion via WP:PROD, because it was never tagged with a PROD tag, and apparently no one objected after 5 days. Mangojuicetalk 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concepto[edit]

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

Non-notable band, unverifiable. A google search exposes only 20 ghits and reveals that this is part of an effort to vanispamcruftise using Wikipedia. Deleted on it for these reasons. MER-C 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirected to Albert Schweitzer. Editors are welcome to merge any relevant material in from the history. BLACKKITE 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem of Peace lecture by Albert Schweitzer[edit]

The Problem of Peace lecture by Albert Schweitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No real information aside from content of the speech itself; propose transwiki to wikisource. Maralia (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would this be copyrighted and unfree by any chance? MER-C 06:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Albert Schweitzer, if not already done so. This particular article seems unsalvagable in its current form, as indicated it's mostly speech content. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not copyrighted, move to Wikisource. If it is copyrighted, delete - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move -- or merge. It's a direct copy, not suitable for WP. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney Street (Manhattan)[edit]

Attorney Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable street. From what I can tell by the description, Attorney Street is a short street (it intersects just four other streets?), is not a major thoroughfare, and doesn't have any particularly interesting historical importance. There are no references to significant coverage of this street from reliable third-party sources; the only outside source given is [40], which mentions Attorney Street in passing. —Bkell (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G1 - a hoax is not speediable but utter nonsense is. Pedro :  Chat  11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ture[edit]

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

Tons of unlikely unsourced information, neologism?, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of That's So Raven Episodes by Production Order[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of That's So Raven Episodes by Production Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (removed by anon IP without explanation). Basically, this list is a direct copy of List of That's So Raven episodes, only in a different order. Totally redundant. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reasons for speedy delete. See Wikipedia:CSD. Redfarmer (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. If it's notable to indicate the order in which the episodes were produced, that can be handled on the episode list page. 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to provide an alternative sort order, see Sortable tables. I hope you find my advice useful. The Transhumanist 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's So Deleted JuJube (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non notable. Undeath (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Coalition[edit]

Middle East Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sorry, but reads like a game guide (could be fixed,) and does not seem to have any real world notability (not happening, the game came out 3 years ago.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confederacy of Independent Systems[edit]

Confederacy of Independent Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Real-world notability not established, no reliable sources available. User:Dorftrottel 05:22, January 22, 2008 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. No sources, written almost entirely in-universe, no real world notability. TJ Spyke 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even behind-the-scenes link at starwars.com lacks any meaningful info. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Kinda unsure now - The request for references "references needed" notice on the top of the page only went up two days ago, and googling it returns 30,000 hits. --Explodicle (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "The request for references" has existed since the article's 4 Aug 03 creation; 4.5-year absence of references suggests that this topic is not notable enough to warrant coverage by reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying that we should base our assessment of notability on how good our article is? Just because we've done a lousy job referencing something does not mean it not noteworthy. --Explodicle (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article that for so long hasn't had references I imagine doesn't have references not through editor laziness but because there are no references out there. The lack of material providing the real-world perspective needed to substantiate an article suggests that this is not a notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing real-world about the subject, or the article. Maybe transwiki to Wookiepedia? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE and above.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably sourceable--deletion is premature.DGG (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Confederacy of Independent Systems is a notable fictional organization that appears in various mediums in perhaps the all time most notable fictional universes. Information is easily verified through reliable sources and so references just need to be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information here is just plot summary an inappropriate for Wikipedia. In the long history of this article, where are the citations to sources that offer a real-world, out-of-universe perspective? I doubt they're out there; contributors to this article haven't met the burden of proof to establish real-world notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is entirely appropriate for a non-paper encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can and should just be improved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would love to keep this article if we could find some links to establish the real-world notability of the CIS. WP:PAPER is not a free pass for inclusion. --Explodicle (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A real world search engine seems to turn up a lot of results: see here. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The first hits that arise are mostly wikis, fan sites, and excerpts from reviews of game that involve the CIS. The closest thing to a real-world-related hit -- the aforementioned SW.com database entry -- doesn't have sufficient material to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nevertheless, the large number of hits demonstrates that the subject is indeed notable and we can rely on the primary evidence to sustain the article for the time being. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The large number of hits demonstrates no such thing. All it means a lot of fan and review sites mention the CIS. See WP:GOOGLE. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I still have to disagree as it demonstrates widespread fan interest. In any event, the article has been improved over the course of this discussion: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Fan interest ≠ notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I wouldn't call my parents Star Wars fans, but they're familiar with this fictional organization from having seen the films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Parent familiarity ≠ notability. And while the edits you provided are well-intentioned, they do not offer an assertion of real-world significance. One of the cited sources is an unreliable source (wookieepedia), all another does is assert Dooku's role as leader, and the third substantiates a single, very broad claim. The article is overwhelmingly plot summary and trivia (e.g. list of member worlds, leaders). Where is the critical commentary? Where is the information on development? Where is the information about merchandising or spinoffs or anything else that can make this article make progress toward passing WP:WAF, WP:N? --EEMIV (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I agree that the article should be improved further, but the reality is that it can be improved further and deleting it would be premature and unnecessary. If not enough by themselves, then the combination of fan interest and parent familiarity = notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • We don't even need all that. Rocks and Shoals (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) counts as notable because of one single reliable source, and I haven't ever seen "critical commentary, information on development, or information about merchandising or spinoffs or anything else" related to it. If we can find some reliable sources, we should be able to keep the article. Something. Anything. We can end this whole debate hands down with just a couple reliable sources. --Explodicle (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I did find a newspaper article that lists the main leaders of the Confederacy of Independent System (see bottom of this page). Also, I came across this article that draws parallels between the Confederacy of Independent Systems and the Confederate states of America versus the Grand Army of the Republic (used both in the American Civil War and in Attack of the Clones). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of hits on google news. [51], many of which look non-trivial but are behind a pay wall. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These appear to be reviews for the (notable) third prequel and games that include the CIS. Are any of them about the CIS itself? --EEMIV (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Entirely plot summary without real-world context or significance. Notability is not established and it is doubtful reliable sources independent of the subject exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stargatetc 2[edit]

Stargatetc 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about an unreleased mod. To my eye, it appears to be full of predictions and advertisement-like information. All citations are from the project website except for one. That is where I am getting the self promotion side. Slavlin (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Backwoods[edit]

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

Not a notable name, no source for made up term Aboutmovies (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contested prod. Neologism, only one Google hit, from a bulletin board. All original research and no assertion of notability. Katr67 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Wikipedias deletion policy states clearly that "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Furthermore; as a resident of Eugene, I would like to contest the notion that "Eugene Backwoods" is not a noteable name. As only parts of the forest are officially named, the term "Eugene backwoods" is often heard by people in and around Eugene.
    • That's the point. Most people here don't think it can be improved. JuJube (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A locally used term is not one that meets notability guidelines. Unless it can be sourced, I would say it needs to go. Slavlin (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable location. Marlith T/C 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JuJube (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Citizens for Science[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Texas Citizens for Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dearth of reliable sources to establish notability. Akin to equally unnotable Minnesota Citizens for Science Education. TableMannersC·U·T 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep There are a variety of reliable sources that discuss the organization with four mentions in google news in the last two weeks alone [52] and there are other older hits as well. The organization's president Steven Schafersman may be notable as well (between his academic work and his work with this organization). If it is decided not to be notable enough then I would suggest a merge into Guettarda's list which will be flushed out enough to be in main space soon I expect. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three of the sources are from the Austin American-Statesman, and the fourth is from the NCSE, a friendly group of the same type only national in scope as far as I can tell. But thanks for the links to the articles. I'll read the Austin american statesman article and see if I can use them in the article. TableMannersC·U·T 05:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a smattering of independent sources. The problems created from direct postings at wp by the TCS spokesperson are remediable. The key here is to defer to the smattering of independent sources, and not let this become a mirror of its self-published materials. Skimpy stubs are okay, and far preferable than self-published sourcing of promotional or 'attacking' style content. I left a caution to this effect several weeks back to an editor I recognized as spearheading the organization, (advising not to edit directly controversial claims directly but to offer sources via talk), advice I hope he took to heart. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • addendum-Not at all sure he did, since he created the article after my message. I still say keep, just work to let independent sources determine content, not its president. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip, PM. I just put up the appropriate COI notices. TableMannersC·U·T 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My advice may have been too subtle of a hint. I don't mean to unleash an ambush of the newbie. The AFD's can coax good sources out of nowhere, which is good. Editor coaching and keep urges here shouldn't be contingently linked. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the group is notable. Texas Citizens for Science are important players in the Christine Comer issue; they played an important role in the ICR accreditation affair; and they played a very notable role in the 2003 science textbook battle in 2003. The filed an amicus brief in the Cobb county Georgia textbook sticker case. They were cited in CJ Troost in his book "Apes or Angels" and Mark Isaak "The Countercreationism Handbook". They are cited in reputable publications like the the Austin Statesman, GeoTimes, Inside Higher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher Education...Also in the newsletter of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers, the Texas A&M student paper, the Texas Observer... and many other sources (it's pretty obvious if you do an even cursory google search). Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any reliable source to this effect? Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what effect? That you can find these and other sources if you bother to do a google search? Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you have a source produce it please. TableMannersC·U·T 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I have a source for the fact that you can find these and many other sources through Google? Nope. I can't source that statement - it's what's called an observation. Unlike in a mainspace article, it's acceptable to make observations in a deletion debate. Guettarda (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weakkeep per JoshuaZ. TableMannersC·U·T 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator has voted to Keep. I think we can consider this nom withdrawn and close as a Speedy Keep. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see the harm in waiting for a more diverse set of views. It was a weak keep based on one reliable source, (one news piece, two blogs by the same author). TableMannersC·U·T 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, I think there are enough sources in the article for a speedy keep. TableMannersC·U·T 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I probably wouldn't have created this article myself just yet, but it is at least barely notable (per Austin American-Statesman articles), and is likely to become more so as Texas Board of Education consideration of evolution heats up and if the ICR accreditation controversy continues. HrafnTalkStalk 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: there are definitely WP:RS mentions of them being active in the 2003 Texas SBOE hearings on biology textbooks -- unfortunately they're sufficiently old as to be difficult to get full texts of them online (registration/subscription/etc required). So I'm upgrading my recommendation. HrafnTalkStalk 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per discussion above. References now look fine. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anyone who is familiar with this area realizes that one of the most active of the state organizations of this type is the Texas Citizens for Science. They are frequently quoted in newspapers and other reliable sources. They create petitions and get scientists to sign them and send them to legislators. They publish opinion pieces. They hold rallys and other events. For example, in the Christine Comer episode, the TCS was frequently contacted for comments. Although there are not yet many references cited in the article, anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the creation-evolution controversy will definitely know that this group is notable.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everybody else, sad Texas needs to have such an organisation but it does, hence so do we. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Jedi Project[edit]

Open Jedi Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources available to establish notability. User:Dorftrottel 05:00, January 22, 2008 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A Google doesn't provide any reliable third-party sources to assert notability. It also appears to have been copied from Wookieepedia, where that article was put up for AFD (and one of the reasons it was kept was because "it's on Wikipedia"!). Una LagunaTalk 06:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete video game mods are rarely notable, and the article pretty much affirms this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing is coming up in a google search, just a lot of youtube videos, forum posts and mentions of this article on other star wars game articles on WP. notability has not been demonstrated. Someoneanother 16:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game mods without references for notability are not encyclopedic material./DGG (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predereferencing[edit]

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

Prod removed. It wasn't the most valid prod, granted, but nonetheless the article does not meet notability criteria. Perhaps redirect to Parrot virtual machine, but no additional coverage is warranted at this time (if ever). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn - blog reference not reliable source. Fails WP:V Sting au Buzz Me... 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this term is clearly not notable, also as Sting mentioned blogs do not count as reliable sources and as such this article fails WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also fails WP:NEO. The lone ref merely indicates who did the coining. No notability. Tim Ross·talk 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pngarnet[edit]

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

Nom'd previously under PROD, author removed the tag without explanation. Non-notable company/group, Google search for "PNGARNET" returned only a single result. Gromlakh (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google search for "Papua New Guinea Academic and Research Network" returned nothing at all. DarkAudit (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn - no sources. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, can't find any sources, or even any incoming links to the site. -- pb30<talk> 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural Edge Project[edit]

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

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Most Google hits are press releases or links to its own web site. No Google News hits at all. Text is promotional in nature. Only indication of notability is winning a red-linked award. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Gromlakh (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually there are Google News hits. I've expanded the article a bit and beefed up the referencing. There are certainly enough sources for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have problems with thoe Google News hits. Most of them seem to be from one source called "Ecos." I didn't check them because the site requires registration to view them (and I don't want the spam that comes with that process — been there, done that), but the name would imply an organization that is predisposed to report favorably on isues that The Natural Edge Project might promote. In other words, I'm not sure they would qualify as an independent, reliable source. There are a couple of reliable sources the Google News hit, but that's not much. I'm still inclined toward deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was just pointing out that your statement, "No Google News hits at all", was untrue. Have you looked at the sources which I added to the article? Don't you think that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reliable source? I didn't actually use any of the "Ecos" ones, but anyway, why should sources which look like they specialise in environmental issues be discounted? Do we discount sources about athletes if they are from sports magazines? Sources about politicians written by political journalists? Sources about mathematics from mathematics journals? Of course we don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there weren't any Google News hits when I first ran it. Now I'm scratching my head, wondering what happened. I think my search included the word "The" as part of the string. However, I still don't believe this group meets notability standards, even with those sources. It's better, but still not good enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.-Wafulz (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kin relationship[edit]

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

This was up for speedy, was deleted by an IP I think. There's not really much to say other than...it's complete bollocks. Gromlakh (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as this is obviously made up -- "kin relationship" is a recognized term, but it means a relationship via blood, marriage, or adoption, not what the article says at all. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, complete horse hockey. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Unreferenced, original research, does not meet notability. Lady Galaxy 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced neologism with no potential due to conflict in meaning with existing term. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I heard these type of um... arrangements during my High school years but I don't think it has an official name or has achieved widespread practice. Anyways sources from Google search point to Kinship.--Lenticel (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN neologism. Should have been speedy deleted. User:Dorftrottel 08:49, January 22, 2008
  • Speedy delete pretty much nonsense, although the part at the end about how to make serial numbers for hookups is kind of funny: "If you went out with Sam Smith on Feb 14th, it would be KinSS0214 / The date would be always 4 numbers if you want year it would be KinSS021407 (Provided it was in 2007)" etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi[edit]

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

An article about a new browser-based games. There aren't enough reliable sources to meet inclusion guidelines or to write an objective article. I searched for reviews (I aim for at least two) or major awards and couldn't find any that weren't user-generated, reprints of press releases, or trivial mentions. Wafulz (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there will come official sources within the next weeks. But, it's hard to understand that you want third party sources (didn't see a browser-based game here which has some) for easily verifiable facts. I am not talking about a strange thing hidden in my dwelling room - it's online and everybody can take a look at it. --Malone70 (talk) 23 January 2008

An article on wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources to pass the notability guideline, to cover information like reception, what reviewers thought of it. Without that information it can't be a balanced article and just repeats the information that readers could glean directly from Ars Regendi's homepage. The unreferenced browser games you saw could be candidates for deletion themselves, or perhaps the sources are out there but need to be cited. Which games are you referring to? Someoneanother 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is entirely possible that this game could become notable, but it does not apper to be notable as supported by independant sources right now. Slavlin (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry someanother, I don't like to squeal other game developers ;) Those are big games, played by hundred-thousands of players, who could confirm all information given in the articles. As 3000 hitherto players could confirm the informations given by me. Whatever, when there are some 'official' press articles about Ars Regendi, can I publish the article again without bureaucracy? By the way, there where until now 2.000 visitors on Ars Regendi from the Wikipedia, each one stayed average eleven minutes, that may be a hint, that the wiki-users find that link quite useful. Regards, Marc --Malone70 (talk) 25 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by bereaucracy you mean an AFD like this then yes, most likely. Notability is the hurdle to clear, once that's done it's a case of hammering away at an article till it conforms to WP's policies and guidelines, but that can be done when the article is in mainspace. Someoneanother 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all you are going to have is a press release, that would not be sufficient: that is still content coming from the game's producer. What you should wait for are independent reviews written up in reliable sources (i.e. not posted by fans, but written by paid authors). Once that happens (if it happens), notability would be clear. (As for the other games, they probably shouldn't be deleted if they're played by 100Ks of players, but their articles do need those sources.) And, most importantly, you shouldn't publish the article if you're involved with the company: see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. Instead, wait for someone else to post it. Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaina Solo[edit]

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

Violates WP:FICT: written almost entirely in in-universe style, with zero evidence of real-world notability. Arguably, there's nothing here which could be called a reliable source either. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yet another NN Star Wars character. There's a fine in-depth article at Wookiepedia, where it appropriately belongs. Incidentally, the Wookieepedia article is better referenced and even contains some real-world information, though still not enough to have Wikipedia host it. User:Dorftrottel 05:03, January 22, 2008
  • Keep, major character in best-selling series of novels and comics. I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites. Barring keep, should at least be merged into List of minor Star Wars characters rather than deleted outright. Same as with Jacen Solo. Powers T 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are no reliable, third-party sources to establish real-world notability, the material should be removed. User:Dorftrottel 00:42, January 23, 2008
      • Indeed, but the predicate of that conditional is undetermined, in part for the reasons stated above. Powers T 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In dubio contra reo, I'd say. Speculation on the existence of sources is not the threshold, actual verifiability is. See also Wikipedia:V#Burden of evidence: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." User:Dorftrottel 13:19, January 23, 2008
          • I don't think it says that at all. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." What material are you challenging? Hobit (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in a major series RogueNinjatalk 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you provide any reliable third-party source to prove it, this remains your own private assertion. If the character were actually notable, secondary sources shouldn't be hard to find. User:Dorftrottel 00:40, January 23, 2008
  • Keep Major characters--or even medium important ones--in the really major works of fiction are notable, and sourceable, for the character will be discussed in every work about the series.DGG (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One single example of a reliable, third-party source should be easy to come up with and would be helpful. So far, not one example of a reliable, third-party source has been provided. "Should be" is pure speculation. User:Dorftrottel 20:17, January 23, 2008
  • Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a majority vote. Or do you have such an example of the character being discussed in a reliable, third-party source, such as DGG suggests should exist? User:Dorftrottel 09:53, January 26, 2008
  • Delete - No assertion of real-world notability, no information about real-world development, critical response, or anything else that makes for a good Wikipedia article on a fictional topic. Wookieepedia is the place for that. --EEMIV (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HOT!. Seriously, though, the article asserts notability: "eldest child of Han Solo and Leia Organa Solo"--two of modern popular culture's most recognizable fictional characters. Jaina is part of an incredibly notable fictional universe that includes movies, games, comics, etc. And as long as reliable sources exist even if they are predominantly primary, than the article is encyclopedic. Keep in mind when you look at old copies of the PAPER encyclopedias set up during the Enlightenment or even some articles in Britannica today, scholarly encyclopedists recognize that a topic can be notable and worthwhile to cover even if there is not an overabundance of published dissertations on the topic. An encyclopedia is about being a reference and collection of human knowledge. Yes, sources matter, but when secondary sources are not at hand, primary sources will do just fine for the time being. Finally, it is good that there is an article on Wookiepedia, but Wikipedia is much more widely known and we would do our readership a disservice to expect them to go somewhere else if they are already here on Wikipedia doing their research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But does this character have notability in her own right? Is there any evidence that she has any influence on popular culture? Can you show any of this evidence? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not even the primary concern here, although it's correct that notability is not inherited and articles should only ever be split off if the main article (in this case, the book articles) are overlong. Even then, the split-off material must be referenced in its own right. But Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles indirectly addresses the true problem: It's not an encyclopedic article in the first place. "Yes, sources matter, but when secondary sources are not at hand, primary sources will do just fine for the time being." — This couldn't be further from policy and the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Real-world context and according reliable, secondary sources are not some fluffy luxury, they are necessary for each and every single article on Wikipedia. And what speaks against deleting it for now? A more comprehensive version of the "material" is included in the Wookieepedia article, and there's no prejudice against recreating the article iff reliable, third-party sources can finally be found, which may be real soon now. As for "if they are already here on Wikipedia doing their research": This has got to be one of the most hilarious arguments. EVERYTHING that is currently in this ""article"" can be ""researched"" simply by reading the books, or a synopsis easily found via <10 seconds of googling. User:Dorftrottel 12:26, January 29, 2008
  • Merge or delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Lenin and McCarthy, please see this suggestion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the fact that you're not telling that to the others who are voting per in this very discussion is more than telling. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, January 29, 2008
        • Yes, it's telling readers that saying it once in a discussion is sufficient as it would be annoying and redundant if I posted it to every single poster in this discussion. As it is the most recent poster to use that form, it seemed best to post it as a reply to that user as it would thus be mostly likely to be read. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jaina Solo is a notable character as she plays a major role in the Expanded Universe. Several novels, such as Dark Journey, focus solely on Jaina, and that does make her important. As other users have argued, Wikipedia's notability guideline supports this. Grey Maiden talk 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appear to be reasonable sources out there: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Jaina+Solo&ie=UTF-8. Also, I think "major character, major series" has gained consensus.Hobit (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no. All of the hits only mention Jaina Solo, none specifically discusses the character significantly. User:Dorftrottel 18:20, January 29, 2008
      • Could well be. Many of them looked to be non-trivial, but I didn't look closely and I couldn't get to them all. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly: A "consensus" for an invalid rationale is irrelevant. User:Dorftrottel 18:21, January 29, 2008
  • Keep Published information about this character can be found, eg from this Star Wars Encyclopedia that has information on Star Wars characters. Bláthnaid 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, not a third-party source. User:Dorftrottel 02:11, January 30, 2008
      • Why isn't Del Ray Books a third party source? It is owned by Random House, so it looks like a reputable publisher to me. Was the author of that book involved in writing Star Wars novels? (I'm not a fan, so maybe I'm missing something here.) Here are some more potential sources not published by Del Ray: Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters, Star Wars: Essential Guide to Characters (same name, different books). Bláthnaid 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is reliable to back up in-universe information, but isn't a third-party as it provides no abstract discussion and real-world context. All such sources are quintessentially tie-in and provide no substantial discussion above the level of narration. See also WP:PSTS. User:Dorftrottel 13:03, January 30, 2008
          • WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." That is what these books are. There is out-of-universe information on Wookieepedia that could be used in this article. Surely there is more secondary information about an important character in such an important franchise? (BTW, I'm unsure about the publisher of the 2nd and 3rd books I mentioned above -- Amazon.co.uk does not say that Del Ray Books is the publisher, but other places say that it is.) Bláthnaid 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Wookieepedia material is itself uncited and speculative original research; no help there. --EEMIV (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right about that; I see now that the source for that section is a fansite. Bláthnaid 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the quality and validity of all the keep rationales, this is so far a clear-cut delete. User:Dorftrottel 02:13, January 30, 2008
  • Delete per others. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Reliable sources independent of the subject do not appear to exist to establish notability or to provide real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources, is comprised of plot summary and contains no real-world evidence of notability. Without any sources, this could be classed as original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Angola[edit]

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

Blatant POV issues. The first line tells the story: "Corruption in Angola is a pervasive phenomenon, hindering economic growth and government-sponsored liberalization programs." The assertions may be correct (I suspect they are), but this is simply not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, properly referenced instance of an incomplete series. Corruption is widely recognized as a pervasive social problem, especially in Africa, and it is receiving increasingly intense attention, so I'm not sure what your problem with this topic is. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Because it takes a blatant point of view, not a neutral one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's a point of view that corruption is good? I hope that's not what you mean. What do you mean? --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course not. But one man's corruption is often another man's regular course of business. "Corruption" is often a very subjective term, depending on whose ox is being gored. I could care less which side one takes, but NPOV policy says that we don't take sides. That's my problem here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could I give you $5 to withdraw your nomination, then? --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dang! I could use that five bucks. No, sorry, but if the article were rewritten to tone down the POV issues, I'd withdraw. (For free.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics of Angola. Highly POV title. The problem may be pervasive, but the parent article is sorely lacking and this would lead to a better representation.-Wafulz (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is POV about the ttile? That merely pairing the terms implies that Angola is more corrupt? Then waht about, say, Crime in X articles? --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The original posting of the prod template is improper at best, vandalism at worst. This AfD is a WP:POINT violation. Jose João (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How could you possibly call this vandalism and keep a straight face? Wikipedia has a long-established policy against articles which promote a particular point of view, and this article goes against that policy. The prod was very much in order, and when it was removed, an AfD was then in order. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 24-hour block would be lenient. Jose João (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I STRONGLY object to such a comment. I have made a good-faith nomination for an article that deserves to be deleted becaue it is blatantly in violation of NPOV procedures. You, as the original author, have yet to give an indication as to why your article should be kept. You have only cried foul and tried to disparage me for pointing out the policy violations in this article. Let me be clear: when it comes to a point of view about the subject itself, I have none. Frankly, I could care less about the political problems of Angola. In fact, I tend to agree with much of what the article alleges, but my point is that such an article does not belong at Wikipedia, at least in its current form. If the presentation were more even-handed, I would not have such an opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the idea that corruption is a major problem in Angola is a point of view; incidentally, this "blatant point of view" is the opinion of every major source who has looked at the problem, like the International Monetary Fund [53], The Economist [54][55], Transparency International, etc. Can you find me any sources which try to claim that corruption in Angola is not a problem and prove that editors of this article are unduly suppressing those views? (Which wouldn't be grounds for deletion anyway). Some parts feel a bit like a WP:OR laundry list of every time an event happened in Angola and someone yelled "corruption!", but the article as a whole is quite appropriate and this series should be expanded to other countries as well. cab (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV is no reason to delete an otherwise decently referenced article. User:Dorftrottel 08:47, January 22, 2008
  • Keep the article is flawed and needs to be expanded from just being a collection of incidents (a discussion of what contributes to corruption and what's being done about it should be included) but a peer review would be better than deletion. Given the article's problems, however, I don't see why nominating it for deltion is bad faith as it is unbalanced without a discussion of counter-corruption issues. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is that what the other !voters are concerned about -- that it's just "Angola's got all this corruption", so to speak, and not enough "Angola has its own Eliot Ness on the case"? --Dhartung | Talk 11:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Forftrottel. POV is something to fix, not delete. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The article concerns a important subject but it fails NPOV. Should be reworked. --Funper (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note in review that the article proposed in this Afd includes a navigation template at its foot. This template presently includes a number of redlinks to other such articles on corruption in other African countries; as well as some existing blacklinks to articles which on first review seem to suffer the same NPOV issues which this article does at present. On the basis of the WP:5P I think the titles of these articles are inherently POV in nature, and my concern is not that we couldn't get one well sourced article out of this subject, but that creating a whole flotilla of such articles would break WP:5P. I am also concerned that no one has placed a note on the WP:Africa project talk page re the issues surrounding this subject - which I have now done. On the basis that the title's of the proposed articles are inherently POV, the volume of potential POV/debate in keeping them NPOV, and the resulting need to closely monitor these articles to avoid a clear clash with WP:5P; my current suggestion is that material already in these articles is distributed into the appropraite country articles, or political/government sub articles. I'd also like to see a clear apology to the nominator Realkyhick from Jose João - a daft comment on this Afd which for me breaks WP:AGF. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, POV is not a reason for deletion so sorry, no, this AfD is disruption to make a point. You secondly claim that the title of this series of articles - Corruption in X country - is inherently POV. In the future, please refrain from referring to "WP:5P" when you clearly, only, mean WP:NPOV. You say you posted on the talkpage for WikiProject Africa notifying members of this AfD. What you should have done is list this under Africa-related AfDs. I suggest you strike out your above comment and issue an apology to Africa WikiProject members for violating longstanding process. Perhaps, instead of commenting on my earlier comment ("daft"), you consider the wisdom and civility of your own comments before posting. Thanks, Jose João (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is not disrupting anything or about disrupting anything. Once again, you are avoiding addressing the issues of this AfD directly, and instead crying foul about others. Don't tell us why you think everyone else is wrong. Tell us why your article is right. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I bother? No one agrees with you. "Everyone else" consists of only you. Notice the "Keep" votes? Jose João (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you cite actual issues? What have you to hide? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. POV issues can be resolved, and aren't as extensive as nom believes, given that article is well-referenced. The title is not inherently POV - there is corruption everywhere, and it's not POV to discuss how much and what forms corruption takes in a specific country. Argyriou (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs expansion and rewriting for possible POV checking, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Users Dhartung and Argyriou. NPOV can be dealt with by including sources (if any) that state that corruption is not relevant or prevalent or problematical in Angola. Please note that there should be immediate stubs created for all sovereign nations (except Finland - grin).
Note: This vote in no way supports the POV of User: Perspicacite that this Afd was without merit. Alice✉ 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deprecate this reversion and this reversion and this reversion of my comments above by User: Perspicacite which are all contrary to Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Alice✉ 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC) and 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) and 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I've posted a notice to WP:ANI regarding Perspicacite's behavior on this AfD and on the article. Argyriou (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: From this, it can be seen that Wikipedia's current use of "corruption" in page titles is extremely selective and unbalanced. -- Visviva (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Interesting observation, though I suspect its more like "incomplete" than anything else. So much corruption, so few writers... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Angolan politics article. -- Visviva (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wiki's coverage of corruption is very unbalanced. Minor incidents of local corruption in the US such as Operation Boptrot are covered in detail. We even have a catgory just to document historical corruption in the UK. We need more articles like this one to reduce that systemic bias. --MediaMangler (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Berrie[edit]

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

Proded without giving any reason. Opposition was lodged on the talk page, but without removing tag. Subject does not appear to meet any notability criteria. CitiCat ♫ 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Does every DJ in the world think he or she deserves a Wikipedia article?? Just D.J. Hall, IMHO. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Observer article is good, but I'd like at least one more article about the subject.-Wafulz (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above. Being Britney's lapdog for a song or two just isn't enough. Lady Galaxy 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. The current source are trivial, rather than significant, coverage. However, should significant reliably sourced coverage come up, no bias against re-creation. Pastordavid (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Saturation Modeling[edit]

Dynamic Saturation Modeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod that was speedy deleted once as advertising. The term is a trademark of the company, apparently, but the article doesn't give enough information about it to explain it. There aren't many online explanations, so I believe it should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 03:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, insufficient context, thinly-veiled spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn technology designed by nn company. Fails WP:V Sting au Buzz Me... 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is spam dressed up as a non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an article isn't deletable simply because it contains spam (if there is legitimate content as well, and there is in this case), or because it's a trademarked version of something. We have articles for Martinizing Dry Cleaning, Broasted chicken, and Robitussin, all of which are for all practical purposes identical to other brands and therefore nothing more than names. The problem here and the reason this should be deleted is what the nominator hints at, it's just not notable in this case. If the content is usable it's in the article about guitar amps or one about the company that invented or uses the technology. Wikidemo (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong collaboration[edit]

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

I am somewhat confused by this article. I feel that this article might not be an notable neologism for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only sources are written by the person who coined the term. I do know that notability is one of the hardest things to fulfill for an article. I am sorry. Marlith T/C 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Try googling "strong collaboration" Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "strong collaboration" Obama uses [56] to write his speeches, or the "strong collaboration" that Ghana and China use to build hospitals [57], and 99% of the other GHits, are hardly related to the concept being referred to in this article. cab (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's very interesting and as a topic ear to the heart of Wikipedians, but I see aught but primary sources or sources with insufficient independence or credibility. Potential merge or redirect, but aside from unrelated uses (e.g. between political campaigns or military units) there are only 480 hits about this specifically ("strong.collaboration sanger"). Targets could be collaboration, Larry Sanger, or Citizendium, but I'm not sure which would yield the least surprise. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung. A neologism which has not been non-trivially discussed (in the sense it is defined here) by reliable sources intellectually independent of the creator. cab (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neogolism without reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. A merge can be pursued editorially on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

I believe that this is an non-notable aspect of an notable game. Perhaps we can cut down the content and place it in another article and delete this. There were at least two times in this article's history where it was tagged for notability. Marlith T/C 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom, though relevant information could have simply been salvaged and the empty page then housekeeping speedied. User:Dorftrottel 05:14, January 22, 2008
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — and I have restored the notability tagging. This is unsourced and likely original research. Delete as non-notable after plenty of attempts to get it cleaned-up. --Jack Merridew 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When 100's of articles are tagged in a few months (and more than 100 in the last 2 weeks), its pretty hard to keep up! Hobit (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so I know, which of these are you claiming this article is: 1. Instruction manual. 2. Travel guide. 3. Internet guide. 4. Textbooks and annotated text? If it's #1 what instructions is it giving? Hobit (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to see what a game guide looks like then try Ruy lopez. That gets a pass because it's about chess rather than D&D. That's just intellectual snobbery mixed with a witch-hunt. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did some looking around. This article can be improved, though I at least won't get to it until Saturday. darn job. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The published game materials should count as references; and as such, some brief mention of this variety of dinosaur could profitably be added to cultural depictions of dinosaurs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge and Redirect to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Animal. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the creature type one BOZ mentioned. There's no way to improve this article. No matter what you do, it'll still be a short stubby thing about how you can kill dinosaurs when you play a game of D&D. If someone specifically comes looking for it, with the disambiguation and everything, sure, leave this as a redirect for those people. Howa0082 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per BOZ. A little of this information, re-written in a more formal tone, and referenced, will improve the Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) article IMO. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect not a large enough creature sub-type in D&D to warrant it's own article but some of this one can be salvaged and mentioned in the main D&D creatures article - Dumelow (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got the following sources. (which I will add later)
  • Goodman Games: Broncosaurus Rex. A d20 campaign setting set in an alternate future with civil war timeline divergence and dinosaurs on a frontier wild west type planet. Based off D&D with new classes and a bunch of dinosaurs.
  • Goodman Games: Dinosaurs that Never Were. A sourcebook of new dinosaurs for Broncosaurous Rex.
  • Note the above two are d20 references, not D&D references per se, but as a close relative, probably belong.
  • Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Tyrannosaurus Rex. A sourcebook on T-Rex's in D&D including growing huge and becoming psionically active.
  • Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Velociraptors. A sourcebook on Velociraptors in D&D. Including playing them as PCs without fully opposable thumbs and a shaman type class for them.
  • TSR: Module The Bane of Llywelyn Major opponents in this adventure are dinosaur riding amazons (see cover on link)
  • WoTC: Eberron Campaign setting
  • TSR: Monster Manual 1st through 3rd editions.
There are many more, but I think that's a good start. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be clear, all of the above are books. There are also likely to be a dozen or more magazine articles on this. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several throughout Dragon's history, FWIW. Plus Dinosaurs featured heavily in a number of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc modules and sourcebooks. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the Forbidden Plateau - A module within the Planes of Conflict Box set features dinosaurs quite heavily. The namesake location of the adventure was also linked to the divine domain of Ubtao from FR, who was himself heavily associated with dinosaurs.
Comment The content of these books will yield only non-notable detail for addition to the article IMO. I just don't think this subject warrants an article by itself. My vote remains Merge per BOZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect That's my vote for the moment. However I might be willing to change it to keep depending on the level of changes anyone feels capable of making to it content and/or sources.Shemeska (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the revisions made to the article, I'm satisfied changing my vote to Keep.Shemeska (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nomination. Every version of the D&D game had versions of dinosaurs, but I don't think that is a notable point to them. Slavlin (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just did a re-write of the article. It's not as good as I'd like, but I've spent all the time I can on it. If you get a chance, please take a look at it. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty good. Marlith T/C 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you are welcome to withdraw the AfD :-) Hobit (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally now I am leaning to merge and redirect. Marlith T/C 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry Hobit, I don't think we should be keeping this. My issue is thus; what's the likelihood that someone would come to Wikipedia specifically for information about dinosaurs in D&D? I think it very unlikely (if they don't want unit data/stats, which we don't do), and thus see no real need in keeping this. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason to delete, and I think it a little silly to assume that an article several people have worked on would be an article that no one wants to read. Personally, I think the subject of where and how dinosaurs have been used in the 30-year, thousand book history of D&D to be interesting, without unit stats, whatever the hell those are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Although this article has got secondary sources, it has none that demonstrate the notability of a single dinosaur in the Dungeons & Dragons canon. As the article itself says, "Some of the dinosaurs used in D&D...are real ones which used to exist on earth". No wonder, as real dinosaurs have notability and the argument that D&D ones have inherited this notability is unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dinosaurs aren't a notable creature in dnd, although they do have some impact on certian settings such as Eberron this could easily be covered in other articles. I don't feel they are a significant enough monster to warrant thier own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookakitty (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, if something meets the requirements of WP:N it is notable. I think thats been done here. Votes after the revision seem like variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. I mean two whole books have been written on the topic, a large number of magazine articles, and (per the article) the topic has been a significant part of D&D since nearly the beginning and continue into this century. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's not clear that enough of the sources are independent of the topic to pass WP:N. Most of the refs are TSR/WotC, and the WWOG ref on its own isn't enough. It looks to me like the goodman guides are primary sources, so they don't count either; but perhaps someone could demonstrate otherwise? Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it still count as a primary source as a third party publisher though? BOZ (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear. It depends whether you think the thing they have to be independent of is D&D, or Dinosaurs within D&D. They probably are independent of D&D, because they're not TSR/WotC; but they're probably not independent of Dinosaurs-in-D&D because they're publishers of books on that topic. I think that because this AFD is about Dinosaurs-in-D&D we have to look at it the second way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait? So now do we have to have books not on chess to prove the notability of chess? That standard is absurd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we need to have books written by people who don't sell chess sets. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these people sell all the physical tools needed to play D&D. They just sell books. None of them sell dice, and only WotC sells miniatures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of D&D, the books *are* the physical tools needed to play. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're not. You no more need the books at the table then the rules for chess, but unlike chess, which in theory can be played without any physical implements, you do need a neutral randomizer--that is, dice. Your standard, unsupported by any policy, puts unfair burden on roleplaying games, as it makes any random book on a chess-like game independent (even if no one produces chess sets for that game), but virtually no book on a roleplaying game independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary; in many ways the rulebooks are the game - and not all RPGs have randomisers nor miniatures. You say that applying the standards would make "virtually no book on a roleplaying game independent", but you don't draw a distinction between sourcebooks (which modify a game) and books which merely describe the game. Sourcebooks aren't independent sources for the creatures they describe, in the same way that a book of chess variants isn't an independent source on the topic of those variants. However, a book on the history of role-playing games could be independent in the same way that a book on the history of chess can be. From Wikipedia:Independent sources: "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." If an author wants players to include their material in their game, that's not a disinterested perspective, so a sourcebook isn't independent of its topic, whereas a review or history doesn't seek to alter an existing game but rather to inform third parties about a topic. That's the sort of coverage you need to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all RPGs use randomizers or miniatures, and those that don't have no physical components. This one, however, does. The rulebooks are no more the game then the rulebook in chess is the game. Is there any source for Hoyle not being an independent source for Wikipedia, or is it something you made up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above arguments. Hobit (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we have independent sources here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Referenced and as notable as any other type of D&D monster; maybe even more notable, since its only one short article for the entire class of creatures rather than one article per monster. Their use in Eberron was particularly notable—I remember that when Eberron was first previewed by WOTC, many gaming news sources picked up on the "halflings on dinosaurs" angle and used it to represent all of what Eberron is about. I'm sure with a little digging, I can find some reference to that controversy... --Ig8887 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a second independent source would establish notability - could you give any more details? If not, there isn't enough to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there may be a general misunderstanding that a mention on a fansite or a passing reference in a third party publication is a reliable secondary source, when in fact they are nothing of the kind. Evidence that these D&D monsters have notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game) needs to be shown by "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". As this article is composed of in universe plot summary, sources that support the in universe content do not provide of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article consists of a history of dinosaurs in D&D. It is neither in-universe nor relying on passing references. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment notability isn't a question of content, so whether the article consists of a history or an in-universe description isn't relevant. To be notable, it needs multiple non-trivial independent secondary sources; it doesn't appear so far to have those. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Agreed that the topic must have multiple non-trivial ind. secondary sources. I feel it has them. Let's look at a few:
          • http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=9464 is a (new) secondary, independent reference that shows that Eberron has a focus on dinosaurs. There are tons of such references that could be found, but I used the first one from a Google search. Could be viewed as trivial, but I think it highlights the issue quite well.
          • Goodman games books are clearly non-trivial and independent. Given the books expand upon the original WoTC/TSR work, I'd call them secondary.
          • The various modules are non-trivial secondary sources. Only the stuff by Paizo Publishing (adventure path) is also independent. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are also Dragon magazine articles on the topic (including two in issue 318) that aren't in the article at this point. Also independent and secondary. I'll toss one in. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, without prejudice to re-creation under proper name after album is released, if it is released, and is sufficiently verifiable and notable for inclusion. --MCB (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album[edit]

Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable source, no title, no release date ... WP:CRYSTAL violation. Kww (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whisper (Vanessa Hudgens Album) for same album, different name.--NrDg 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's all based on a dodgy self-published source, cannot find any other mention of this anywhere. --neonwhite user page talk 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal-ballism at its worst. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Gromlakh (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not much is known about the album and I think that this material should be recreated when more information is announced (the title,release date,etc...) Surfer-Boy94 (talk) 7:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: www.dotspotter.com does not satisfy WP:RS.Kww (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surfer-boy94 (talk · contribs) is the article creator. Can't speedy under {{db-author}} as others have made significant contributions. --NrDg 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Account created immediately before this vote, and this vote is its only contribution. Account created within 10 minutes of creation of Insomniatic_999. www.dotspotter.com does not satisfy WP:RS.Kww (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything is fully sourced in this article, and Vanessa has said many times that she is working on a new album set for a May/June 2008 release. Insomniatic_999 (talk) 06:18 , 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Account created immediately before this vote, and this vote is its only contribution. Account created within 10 minutes of creation of Piece-of-Me-08. www.dotspotter.com does not satisfy WP:RS.Kww (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: www.dotspotter.com does not satisfy WP:RS.Kww (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As confirmed by Vanessa herself, a new album is in the works and this article is fully sourced. Girls alouds biggest fan (talk) 07:28 , 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: www.dotspotter.com does not satisfy WP:RS.Kww (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm getting deja vu here. Wasn't this article on AFD just a few days ago, or is this a separate article on the same subject? 23skidoo (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to confirm the source is wholey self-published with no evidence of editorial oversight therefore it fails WP:V and can not be used. --neonwhite user page talk 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eonline - Vanessa Hudgens' Sophomore Effort supports the probable release of a second album. This is mentioned and referenced in the Vanessa Anne Hudgens article. The use of unnamed sources in the article reduces the cites usefulness in my opinion though, so the support is very weak as we have no way of verifying the reliable of the source they used. --NrDg 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and editor's very long history of creating unsourced articles just like this one. - eo (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many sources that confirm that Hudgens is working on a new album due for release this Summer and also for the tracks listed - Exclusive_474 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exclusive 474 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Going over the references that were added to the article it looks like they are all sourced by either the Eonline article or are comments in blogs by unknown authors so have no reputation for fact checking. --NrDg 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with the above, at this time the article does not source reliable sources as established by WP:RS and as such it qualifies for WP:BALL. SorryGuy  Talk  23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
--MCB (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Breath at a Time, Inc.[edit]

One Breath at a Time, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable local organization has not shown any evidence of notability since a July 07 discussion, prod was recently removed and the article contains possible copyright concerns. Article had previously been deleted due to copyright violations. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, still has copyright issues, and the organization is not notable as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LOCAL. This is an assistance fund for transplant patients at one hospital. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject has local notability only which is not enough for inclusion - Dumelow (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of reliable sources, not even the one included source mentions the organization. The copyright explanation is also fuzzy, since they both grant permission but also write that they published it initially on wikipedia which not only marks it as original research, but means that they gave the content away and then reused it without acknowledgment. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by NawlinWiki per CSD A1. Non-admin closure. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved people rules[edit]

Reserved people rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have nominated Reserved people rules, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reserved people rules

Comment Could you please explain your rationale for deletion? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not encyclopedic. Fbdave (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost of Molly Brown (film)[edit]

The Ghost of Molly Brown (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film that hasn't entered pre-production. Prod contested at the last minute with no reason given. Oy. Closedmouth (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Seems like a personal project that is unlikely to ever gain notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it can come back if it is indeed produced and released. Right now, however, it's "The Unthinkable Molly Brown" Mandsford (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that we don't have articles on films (even big Hollywood films) until it's confirmed that shooting has commenced. They're apparently still writing the script here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep – press coverage with 'best of 2004' award = notability. KrakatoaKatie 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7280[edit]

Nokia 7280 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article provides no verifiable claim of notability. Too few substantial, reliable references exist to produce an article that itself is not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the nominator's arguments. If several references with substantial coverage of the product in reliable and indepednent sources are found and added with inline cites by the end of the AFD period I would reconsider. Google searches per se are not convincing, since they are cluttered with reprints of the manufacturer's press release and many are websites of dubious reliability. Please spare us arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety that there are lots of other articles with no proof of notability. Edison (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An especially interesting article - I'd never heard of a lipstick phone before. Plenty of notability, as usual with such items: Google news. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is a reference, why should it not include cellphone reference, but yet have biology reference? Dharbigt (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.68.231 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia has established a standard of phones having articles. If you remove this one it just gives us a big mysterious gap where this article shoudl be.--Him and a dog 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I relisted the debate as the keeps doesn't have a policy based reasoning, no vote. Secret account 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This model may be notable enough on its own merits (witness the 2004 Best Of award) for its own article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have made a few "top [number]" lists, and I found a decent sized review.-Wafulz (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has won a "best of" award, specifically praised in other awards. Certainly notable and deserving of its own article. ~ Carlin U T C @ 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- why the hell not? SeanMD80talk | contribs 04:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Success Hill railway station, Perth[edit]

Success Hill railway station, Perth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources can be found which afford this railway station any degree of notability. As it stands now, the articles fail verifiability. Additionally, the article consists of nothing more than an infobox with information which goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. It seems that complete listings of train stations is part of the train wikiproject, however, as this article fails the policy of verifiability it is being listed at Afd. Russavia (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is longstanding precedent that railway stations are inherently notable precisely because there is virtually always reliable sources available for them. There are a mountain of books on railway history in each city, including Perth, with enough information to form a good referenced article on every station on the network. I know it seems like terribly hard work for those who decide that there must be no sources after a twenty-second Google search, but with the slightest bit of actual research this could be a good article. Rebecca (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having grown up in the local area myself, more than a 'twenty-second Google search' was used in putting this up for Afd. Whilst there are reliable sources available for this station online, none that I am able to find are able to give the station any degree of notability to allow for inclusion in the overall scheme of WP:FIVE. Can you possibly provide further info on the precedent you mention? In regards to the precedent, I can find no precedent in my searches. All I have been able to find is this and this. The first link states 'Subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable.' This Afd is in relation to a station, not on the line. It also states that 'This essay also should not be used as the sole argument in AFDs, as policies and guidelines are what decide whether an article is kept or deleted.' (of course, I am not insinuating this is your sole argument to keep). However, concensus can change, and perhaps it should, as notability is not necessarily inherited (as we see time and time again right here at Afd). I have absolutely no doubt that the line on which Sucky Hill is located is notable, due to its history and the number of sources which would write in detail about the line which can be used to write an encyclopaedic entry, but for this station, I don't believe there are any substantial sources which meets fulfills WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOT. Which leads to the second link, which states 'If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality.' (in the Bassendean article). And goes on to state 'If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all.' Obviously, it is worthy of a mention, just not an article of its own due to it failing core WP policies, and I have looked and looked. --Russavia (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you haven't "looked and looked". As in every other city in the country, there are an abundance of print material on the Perth railway system. There are also two or three long-running journals dedicated to Australian railway history. Both of these have tons of station-level information, and plenty enough to create a good article on any station on the network. I have certainly had little trouble finding sources for any station I have ever chosen to write about. As you've said yourself, you only looked in Google, so how can you suggest that you have the slightest clue about whether or not there are reliable sources? As I said above, it is precisely because the reliable sources in this area are so comprehensive that stations have long been marked as inherently notable. Rebecca (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point of correction. The Google search comment made by myself was a direct quote from yourself. I searched much more than Google. An admittedly not exhaustive search was also made at the Battye Library and Basso public library, as part of helping an elderly family member research the area in which she grew up. I was able to find plenty of references to the train station, but none of them would suitable for this article, as the sources would be absolutely suitable for the wider Bassendean area, but would not build a comprehensive entry on this very small train station. Again, can you please provide something for us where these stations are inherently notable, because I can't find anything, other than some Afds which were closed with no concensus (which depended on the inherently notable argument) and some talk page chit-chat. Even WP:OUTCOMES states that stations generally are not notable (as stated above), so notability has to be established by using verifiable information from reliable sources. I have looked in 2 main physicalsources for information and can find nothing comprehensive to support the existence of this article, and I am questioning the existence of this article when considering actual policies rather than essays, guidelines and other opinions. --Russavia (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You stated above that your search had been an online, and I call bunkum on your claims to have searched at the Battye. Perhaps, if you were trying to find information for an article about a railway station, you might, like, look at books or journals on railway history, as opposed to "helping a relative research local history", as has anyone who actually wanted to write articles on ralway stations? Looking in places where one would not generally expect to find information on the subject and then claiming that such sources don't exist is either disingenuous or incompetent. You're still misquoting policy, too - there is a longstanding precedent that stations are notable (I cannot think of a single case going back to at least 2003 where a railway station article has been deleted), so on that note you're simply wrong. Rebecca (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the nominator has properly defined a stub. This is, however, not a reason for deletion. It does not fail notability and reliable sources are available about it. Both are true in this case. Agreed with Rebecca. Orderinchaos 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am aware this is a stub article, and if it were a band or website, it would clearly be a candidate for speedy deletion. But we have to put these articles up for Afd, something which I even do, and have no hesitation in doing so, within my home wikiproject. You are correct in that an article being a stub is not a reason for deletion. However, not meeting the policy of verifiability is a reason for deletion. You have stated that it does not fail WP:N and WP:RS, I would ask you to provide some further details, of course remembering what Wikipedia is not. --Russavia (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You keep quoting the policy of verifiability, but is anything in the article really unverifiable and unreferenced? I'm guessing your point is that there's not much to say about the station, and that may be true, but it seems to me that you're citing a policy to add weight to an argument of questionable notability, when said policy does not apply to such an argument. --Canley (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent on stations in major metropolitan railway systems. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is to prevent Rough Guide style hotel and cafe listings, and does not apply in this case. There is a more relevent essay at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations), but as an essay there is no obligation to comply. --Canley (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't necessarily agree with the precedent, but it's there, so this subject is inherently notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I definitely have problems with the precedent and have never been quite sure why train stations benefit from such an assumption of notability. That said, the precedent does exist and is not likely to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and contains reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlin (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why individual stations are notable, even though this is the convention. I find it hard to believe that meaningful RSs can be found for every train station and think that this kind of article is really a respectible form of cruft (why are train crufters OK while Star Wars crufters are, rightfully, hounded?). As such, I'm going to be bold and vote for deletion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its intriguing to read all the stuff above - and I am sure it all means something. I go by the convention of keeping - intriguing stuff could be easily found in Jenny Carters history of bassendean if anyone has a copy to hand - also a very close examination of photos in battye will show it as a location relevant to the two railway bridges over the swan river. also the location of rail crossings, bridges, all inherently important and notable for the east of lord street community - which is in newspaper clippings somewhere SatuSuro 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment - ok I am drawing the line here where someone says there is not a reliable source. There are easily accessible written sources on this railway station - more than most other stations along the midland line. And even if a afd nominator states a checking bother Battye and Bassendean public library - it all depends what you are looking at - maybe when I am back in Perth I could help the nomintaor use the SRO files as well? There is no current 'on line source' for the goggle oriented- fair enough. I have used the station in the past and could (if i wasnt interstate) easily expand the article. however thems the rub - i am away from genuine written items. have fun folks SatuSuro 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of WP:V. And article doesn't fail WP:V if it is currently unverified, but only if it is unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article. Rail stations are inherently notable and sources exist on all of them (government records, railroad company records, newspapers, hardcover books, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep tag as a stub and for citations. Dealing with those issues will resolve any probalem with this article. There must be hundreds of thousands of articles that lack adequate citations, but they do not all get deleted. Mind you, I am in another continent and know nothing of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this as the article meets the WP:V. And the sources can be found in verifiable sources, as listed on the article. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the notability policy has become an obstacle to writing articles on encyclopedic topics, then it is time that policy was rewritten. Hesperian 11:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, I find it very hard to believe that there isn't adequate information on this topic in
Higham, Geoffrey J. (2006). All stations to Guildford: 125 years of the Fremantle to Guildford railway. Bassendean: Rail Heritage WA.
Hesperian 11:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above - railway stations are always notable and information is always available on them. The nominator should be ashamed of themselves. JRG (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Minor characters in CSI: NY. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Driscoll[edit]

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

Blatant Wikipedia:CRUFT and Wikipedia:FICT. No place for this drivel in the Pedia Kumqat1406 (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Minor characters in CSI: NY, where a more concise summary should exist.-Wafulz (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's currently a discussion at the Stella Bonasera talk page (another NY character) about this same issue after I proposed Stella Bonasera for deletion. As a result of the discussion on that talk page (and a tangential one on Flack talk), I've drafted what could eventually evolve into sourced, out of universe character documentation. At this point there isn't enough information (my opinion, not consensus) to warrant an individual page for each CSI:NY character, but there may be enough sourced/cited materials for some. This is just provided as background here. I don't feel uninvolved enough to cast a vote, although I haven't been involved with this character's page. Travellingcari (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minor characters in CSI: NY. I'm actually the one debating the deletion of the Stella Bonasera article but I don't feel this one can stand on the same grounds. She was a recurring character for one season of the show and basically was simply a love interest for Mac, the main character. It's unlikely she'll be back on the show as anything major anytime soon since she moved to London. Redfarmer (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streetboxing[edit]

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

As I said on the article's talk page, it's either a hoax or so ungodly unnotable that nobody on the Internet has ever heard of it; "streetboxing" + "buisman" returns zero results on Google. Gromlakh (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry meant after looking around the net, lack of much obviously linked, there are more sources or a DVD of the same name, by someone else... --Nate1481( t/c) 10:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, unsourced. JJL (talk) 0:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. JuJube (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No sources, poorly written, unencyclopediac. So many reasons to delete.Pookakitty (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Rock Elementary School[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable elementary school. GreenGourd (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom not notable and no references. Alexfusco5 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article that's been neglected since at least January '07, when it became something for a guy named Phelan to play with when bored. Will Ferrell did grow up in Irvine, California, but questionable whether he ever actually went to Turtle Rock. No longer useful, if indeed it ever was. Someday, I'm sure someone else will create an article about the school. Mandsford (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We don't delete articles because they're vandalism targets. This article is as notable as any other stub-class elementary school article and it should be placed at Wikiproject:Schools with a request for help before its put up for AfD. This one already has the proper templates and would just be more work for someone else if it was hastily deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this is a vandalism target is because nobody at Turtle Rock school, or anywhere else, cares enough to keep it clean. A review of the history of the article in the last 12 months shows that this article is not more than a kid having fun. Sure you can volunteer to clean it up... but, like a kid's room, it will soon become a mess again. Logically, the school would maintain the article. But if they don't do it, do you have time to do that? I certainly don't. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So have it protected, put it on your watchlist or clean it up yourself. If you don't care enough to do it, leave it for somebody else. Vandalism is not a reason to delete an article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, you don't care about this article either. Yes, it's a mess, but "leave it for somebody else". That says it all. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article yesterday. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, changing prior delete vote, based on the cleanup made by Cumulus, whom I commend for taking the initiative. Kudos also to Hdt83 who noted mentions in the L.A. Times. I think that it's less likely now that it'll be vandalized; I'm curious enough about the Will Ferrell connection to see if I can find some further confirmation. Good work, everyone! Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep THere are several sources that help establish notability. Unfortunately, you have to pay money to access these resources. LA Times, famous composer pays Turtle Rock a visit, Turtle Rock Elementary School Designs house. --Hdt83 Chat 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as I don't see evidence of notability. I was going to vote keep because of the award, but looking at it, it seems that ~600 schools in California have it at any one time, with 100-200 being awarded each year, which seems a low bar. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not accept that award for notability--it includes several in each school district each year, which is too low a standard, DGG (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school, links are too local, too trivial of a news source. Award isn't a claim of notability Secret account 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect all per consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Sweetheart (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Everybody's Sweetheart (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable independently released album by LeAnn Rimes. Only source appears to be a Russian fan site, which I'm pretty sure doesn't meet WP:RS; a search for other sources turned up nothing, not even All Music Guide.

Also listing two related albums, for the same reason:

From My Heart to Yours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All That (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - I couldn't find anything that falls under Reliable Sources, but I found a ton of links in German and this, which says that the albums either actually exist, or somebody pulled off one of the most thorough, useless hoaxes ever. My vote would be to merge with the discography section if WP:SIZE doesn't become an issue. Torc2 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LeAnn Rimes discography per Catchpole. I can't find anything much about these albums from using Google quickly (except the aforementioned Russian fansite and these Wikipedia articles. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a trainwreck, since this appears to be some combination of a deletion and merge discussion. Merges are editorial decisions, not administrative ones, and don't require an AfD. In effect, no consensus exists to delete the articles, whether or not to merge them is an appropriate subject for the relevant talk pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Terrill Lomax and John Lomax III[edit]

Ruby Terrill Lomax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being married to someone notable, graduating with good grades, and co-founding a non-notable, defunct sorority being one of a dozen co-founders of a presumptively notable organization, do not automatically make one notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because being related to someone notable, having a successful but usual career in journalism, and having published a few non-notable books, do not make one notable:

John Lomax III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. This nomination does not include Alan Lomax, who does appear to be independently notable. Basic information from both non-notable bios can be integrated back into John Lomax, from which they were forked and expanded in increasingly rambling family-history detail. Neither non-notable bio satisfies the primary notability criterion, as they do not cite multiple, independent, reliable sources. Copyright violation is also possible, as the material on all four of these people does not read like encyclopedia articles, but something written for a magazine or a bio profile in some other kind of publication, and in the case of John Lomax at least (still examining the others) was expanded massively all in one edit. Could be simply evidence of sandboxing, but... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ruby, weak keep John III. Our biography is chatty and seems to have been taken from the public domain bio on the Library of Congress website, which includes stuff like the love letters, but having a biography page on the Library of Congress website is a pretty big indicator. Ruby was considered a full partner of John A. on his folk music expeditions, as the LoC title The John and Ruby Lomax 1939 Southern States Recording Trip suggests. Among other things, she is credited with the single-handed discovery of Blind Willie McTell. Her part may have been akin to that of a grad student on a research project, but the lasting importance of this particular project to American music is incalculable. As for John III, it seems that his books may be able to pass WP:BK although I was frsutrated by paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree strongly – the Lomaxes worked with the LoC for many years, so of course they have bios there, just like I have a bio at CryptoRights Foundation who I have worked with for years. Fails the "independent" requirement of the primary notability criterion. Strongly agree that the lasting importance of the project, which is covered in great detail at John Lomax, is highly signficant; that does not mean that everyone working on the project needs an independent bio article here. It is precisely because "her part may have been akin to that of a grad student on a research project" that we are here in AfD about this. For John III, not a single book of his has an article here, and finding any critical review of them, as you note, is difficult, so I think that the notability issue still stands, and he also fails the primary notability criterion, since the "sources" listed are mostly either family-related (i.e. non-independent) or of questionable reliability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination doesn't accord her any role in the project whatsoever. Good faith means I assume from that you just hadn't read the material at all. Now you're disputing sources. So it isn't "precisely because" of her limited role. It is "precisely because" you said she hadn't done anything important. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? I haven't disputed anything the sources say; the only thing I've said about the sources was in the nomination to begin with, so I don't know what you mean by "now you're disputing sources". I've disputed that they are the sort required by WP:N from the start. Also, it's simply false that I said she had no role in the project. Please read what I actually write. :-) The point is that John Lomax (I) has an article that clearly establishes his notability, and the project itself is surely notable enough for an article, but not everyone who worked on the project is automatically notable, nor is everyone related to JL, and these two articles in particular badly fail the primary notability criterion. They were created as forks from the JL article to provide more family history detail than would reasonably fit in his own article, and it is just this sort of pointless genealogical article that WP:NOT#DIR addresses under its bullet point #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Whether someone could possibly write a proper article about either of these article subjects isn't really the issue here. It hasn't been done yet, and both of the extant articles fail WP:N quite clearly. If you feel like doing the research to establish the notability of JLIII's books, or to rewrite the RTL article completely so as to establish notability, be my guest, but I don't see anyone raising their hand to attempt either of these. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's not the case that both fail WP:N quite clearly, and saying so doesn't make it so, as disputes here demonstrate. Secondly, AFDs for notability are precisely about whether someone could possibly write a proper article about the subject. If they could, then the subject is notable. If they can't, then not. The style problems with the RTL article are not equivalent to "non-notable". --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, sorry, but yeah, it is clear. Primary notability criterion, from WP:N: Non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Not provided for either of these article subjects. That's just the way it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is clear that sources have to exist; not that they must already be in the article. Anyway, that aside, I found some stuff, and hopefully someone who has the time to hit the various relevant academic databases can check & give us some more definitive answer than Google Scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be more than enough notability to pass muster. The article does beg for a rewrite to make it more Wiki-ish, but even as is, it is allowable. Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ClarifyThe "keep" was for both noms.Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "more than enough notability"? "Notability" means "coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources", not "fame, notoriety or importance", and we don't have any evidence of such coverage here. The RTL article cites no sources at all, though is clearly based on the (non-multiple, non-independent, but probably reliable) bio at LoC. The JLIII article has multiple "sources", again not actually cited, just linked to as external links; the first is JLIII's own website, with is a conflict of interest and not a reliable source by WP's criteria; further it is nothing but a commericial link to JLIII's CD business and has nothing to do with the article on him; it must be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. The second is a 404 error, and appears to have a been a link to one of his books, at the publisher, and even if still valid would also be deleted per WP:SPAM. The fourth is simply online shopping search results for JLIII's books, and guess what? Yep, WP:SPAM again. And finally, the fourth is a newspaper article by his son, which is not about JLIII at all, and of no relevance to the article. So I repeat: What "more than enough notability"? None appears to be demonstrated at all. "Notability" doesn't mean "my subjective view of the article topic's importance". Cf. also WP:ILIKEIT. PS: I see that you've only been editing for a few months. You may wish to familiarize yourself in more detail with Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:N; some of them are fairly subtle, and their interplay can be more so. See also m:Inclusionism, m:Mergism and m:Deletionism. Wikipedia is pretty solidly mergist at this point, but you appear to be approaching AfD from an inclusionist perspective. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Please do not patronize me, or lecture me. I also would appreciate that you NOT ascribe a role to me because I disagreed with your conclusion. I am far from an inclusionist ( in fact, I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum). Quite frankly your hostility and rudeness baffles me, since I was neither confrontational nor combative in offering my opinion. I am familiar with the guidelines, but I don't seem to recall the guideline that says opinions may only be offered by veteran users, or only by those that agree with you. Until such a guideline appears, perhaps you might work on your own skills at dealing with people who dare to disagree with you, and that it might not be a deficit, just a different point of view. A little less arrogance and rudeness serves Wikipedia best. Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "hostility and rudeness"? I've suggested that you read WP:N and deletion policy more closely, because you appear to be making inclusionist arguments that having nothing to do with the primary notability criterion (the deletion rationale that has been given), and WP:ILIKEIT arguments for which there is a mountain of counter-precedent at AfD. There is no ill will in pointing this out, nor any "arrogance" or "patronizing". So, fine, you are a mergist, then, and know all about deletion policy. Why are you advocating inclusionist arguments, when the gist of this entire AfD is that WP:N has obviously not been satisfied, and the remedy here is to merge the actually encyclopedically salvageable information from these articles back into the John Lomax piece?
To be as clear as possible, in hopes of not somehow offending you again: Wikipedia:Notability calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This has not been provided. Yet you argue that these two article subjects are somehow notable (in Wikipedia terms) anyway, and should be included on that vague basis, despite outright failure to satisfy WP's notability criteria; this appears to be an "I like it" inclusionist position, in which "notability" in the WP context is misconstrued as "subjective determinations of 'fame', 'importance' or 'notoriety' ", an interpretation that has not been in play at WP:N or related guidelines and policies since ca. 2005. So, this apparent position of yours and its conflict with what WP:N (and WP:DEL, other pages here where notability is addressed) actually say and mean is what I have asked you for clarification on, so please clarify instead of taking another opportunity to interpret my wording in the most hostile way possible for some reason. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This should probably be relisted for further input; when it was originally listed it was fairly near to the time that a new day's AfD log was coming, so few have actually read this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ruby, no opinion on John. Ruby's article fails WP:V and WP:N, as explained by the nominator. TJ Spyke 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's initial explanation, which was what you based your comments on, was amended later to correct a factual error. Does that affect your opinion? --Lquilter (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruby, no opinion on John III. Ruby's music fieldwork appears notable, and although we don't seem to have an article on Delta Kappa Gamma Society International it appears to be a notable organization (whether it is currently active is irrelevant). Article does need reworking, but she appears to be notable. John has little to recommend him, except a few books authored, but I don't see those as particularly important without more research. bikeable (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ruby without prejudice, no opinion on John III. The Ruby article would need a complete rewrite, and it hasn't received one since this AfD started. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I agree both articles should be somewhat rewritten but I also believe both persons are notable and articles should be kept. -- Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete without salt for Ruby, no evidence of notability, needs independant, reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete John III. Read that lead: "John Lomax III was raised in Texas and is the grandson of pioneering folklorist John Lomax." "Raised in Texas" in the lead? Wha..? So his grandfather was notable (no argument). He isn't. Even if he represents Dead Ringer Band and has a son (who is his grandfather's great-grandson). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this entry branching from 'Joe Hickerson' and found it interesting and helpful for my research. Your own Delete Policy says "For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity" This suggests to me that the Ruby Lomax article should be merged with the John Lomax article. I have no opinion on the John III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.134.247 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right; this is what I've been saying all along; this is not a "delete with extreme prejudice" AfD; it's a "preserve the actually verifiable information that is also actually encyclopedically relevant and isn't "genealogy site" cruft per WP:NOT, by merging it back into the John Lomax article from which it was forked, and then delete the articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruby - no opinion on John III. Nominator is incorrect that the society (an academic professional society of educators, not a "sorority") she founded is defunct and non-notable; it is both notable and non-defunct. See http://www.deltakappagamma.net/ ; 150,000 members in an international organization. That alone would likely be sufficient notability, but she was also a dean and faculty member at UT Austin in the 1920s. For a woman to receive tenure ("associate professor") in the 1920s at a major university certainly signifies beyond the ordinary contributions. Additionally, I see 60+ cites at google books for her ([59]), and 9 cites at google scholar ("ruby terrill lomax"]) -- not bad for work done 90 years ago in an under-recognized field that was largely credited to her husband. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake; I have corrected the nomination. Doesn't change the AfD in any way; being one of a dozen co-founders of something notable does not automatically confer notability to anyone, and there still aren't multiple, independent, reliable sources for either article. That sources may exist doesn't mean that this particular attempt at an article should be retained, nor that the article subject is necessarily notable (until these alleged sources are examined it is unknown whether the coverage is non-trivial and whether the sources are reliable, since none of them have actually be cited here at all.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to admins: This has been going on for a while, but was unfortunately never publicized to academic list. Editors there have access to academic sources that would shed more light on academic notability of both these people. I'd suggest giving a chance to have some evidence of notability (or lack thereof) rather than solely opinions (some of which are based on false information, such as "defunct sorority"). --Lquilter (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Fine by me; I already requested a re-listing above. I have no axe to grind here, I just feel that if one or both of these articles are viable they have to satisfy WP deletion policy, including WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both on the basis of the notability as folklore collectors, as shown by the LC information. R.L. did the documentation for the most notable US folklore collection. J.L. III is a notable author in his own right: Nashville : music city USA is in 471 libraries according to WorldCat. DGG (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How many libraries it is in is of highly dubious relevance, since how it got there is very questionable. My own book may well be in that many libraries because the publisher sent them a free copy when sales slacked off and they had to unload the inventory, but that does not make me automatically notable enough for an article about me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some reason to suspect it was a vanity publication or promotional distribution? The book was published by Abrams, which is a pretty reputable art/coffee table book publisher. --Lquilter (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not allege that it was either; you've missed the point. The point is that libraries obtain books in many, many ways, and do not outright purchase all of them, so the presence of a book in X number of libraries is no indication of anything other than that at least that many of them were printed! The Lomaxes themselves may have donated 200 copies to libraries, some foundation may have done so, the publisher may have done so, etc., etc. I.e., that particular number is of no value in establishing notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In deletion discussions about academics we pretty routinely consider how wide-spread a modern book is. If it's in the collections of many major research universities that suggests research notability. I wouldn't assume donation unless there were some sort of evidence for that. Libraries look closely at donations because they don't want to prejudice the collections, and because every acquisition requires significant resources in processing. So unless there is some specific evidence to suggest funny donation, that's a rather extraordinary presumption. --Lquilter (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, they are a major commercial publisher for this sort of subject. Libraries take free copies sent by publishers and discard them, or try to sell them to the public; no library nowadays has space to add junk to its collection. Certainly not NYPL Research division, Rutgers, Princeton, Stony Brook, U of Penn, Amherst, U. Mass, Cornell, Boston Public, Penn State, Dartmouth, Pittsburgh, and essentially every major academic and large public library, per WorldCat --and hundreds of smaller colleges and systems 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Of what relevance is this supposed to be? That a book is of interest to research libraries and is kept by a number of them does not automatically confer notability to the writer of the book. Let's assume for the sake of argument that 1,000,000 books qualify for the label "can be found in multiple research libraries". This does not mean that Wikipedia needs articles for the writers of every single one of those books! PS: I have not (nor has anyone else in this debate) labeled JLIII's books "junk", so your point appears to be a straw man argument. "Non-notable" and "junk" are not synonyms. To use myself as an example again: Someone could write an article about me and my work, and it might be AfD'd on notability grounds. If that AfD were successful in deleting the article about me on those grounds, this does not mean that I or my work are junk, only that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I.e., there is no emotive battle going on here. Either the PNC in WP:N is satisfied, or it is not. From the facts about these articles to date, it is not. Period. There really is nothing else to it. No one or their work is being labeled "junk", so let's stop emoting about this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pan American Games[edit]

2015 Pan American Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tried WP:PROD, author removed the tag without explanation. Article is about a sporting event expected (but not known) to happen in 2015. Everything in the article is "TBA" with speculation on possible cities that might bid to host it, but not for more than a year from now. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Gromlakh (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep As far as I know, we do know for sure that the event is going to take place, we just don't know where. Corvus coronoides talk 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball Secret account 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it meets WP:Crystal - we know that the event will take place, and there is verifiable info about bids for hosting location. Corvus coronoides talk 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Greetings. I wrote the article. I put a response on the talk page and deleted the tag per the template's instructions; it seems Gromlakh may not have seen the comments. As for the article itself, there are several (7) sources of various facts about the games as well as cities bidding for the games, not just speculation. With any article of this type, there is some speculation, I agree. However, I only created the article today, I still have more research to do anyway. WP: CRYSTAL states:

    "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."

    1. The Pan Am Games are notable. 2. The Games are almost certain to take place. 3. The preparations have been announced. 4. Cities have announced their candidacy.

    If it were the "2031" or even "2023" Games, I would agree with Gromlakh. But there are many articles on similar event which fall after these games! Thanks for your consideration.--Cbradshaw (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Had it been for 2019, I would have said delete. But I think 2015 is close enough, common-sense wise, to have an article. There are likely to be announcements such as venues coming in the very near future. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough information to avoid crystal balling.For comparison, see 2028 Summer Olympics.-Wafulz (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first half of what I said was more important than the second half.-Wafulz (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not fail the CRYSTAL policy because it is documenting events already in the past, that is, the bids that have already been announced. The event is nearly certain to happen, as long as there are no unexpected asteroid collisions with the Earth or global nuclear wars. However, I suggest removing the infobox, which is completely non-informative and a bit ridiculous in my opinion. --Itub (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contains useful info about past events that make it 99.999999% likely that the Games will take place, so it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. But drop the infobox and put it back there in 7 years from now. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Includes sufficient sources to show preparations are already underway, including bidding. If we can have Olympics articles going into the 2020s, the Pan Am Games are equally notable, and since there are already announced plans for bids, there's no WP:CRYSTAL issue here. This also goes for any other future Pan Am Games articles out there, as long as they're sourced and not speculative. 23skidoo (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are may reference points. This is the next edition of these games not decided yet. So close enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.24.150 (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:FICTION clearly says this structure is preferred. The article is obviously not in an ideal state, but deleting it would make us farther from the ideal, not closer. Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sealab 2021 minor characters[edit]

List of Sealab 2021 minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that none of these minor characters meet WP:FICTION Delete Secret account 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think he was citing that specific page as something that would indicate delation, or even citing that page at all. Even if he was, that's nothing more than "I agree with what's being said on this page", which is a valid way to present an argument in AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sealab 2021, sub-article doesn't establish notability on its own. Altairisfartalk 04:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the preferred way to do it, rather than have separate articles for each of them. The individual characters dont have to be notable, its jusfged together with the main article.DGG (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context for "Minor characters in Sealab 2021". All articles are judged independently at AFD and must have sources themselves. A list is not the preferred way to deal with information that cannot be properly sourced, deletion is. To make a list of "things", "things" must be collectively notable. Jay32183 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuild as List of Sealab 2021 characters, with the major characters placed on it. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The major characters already has a mention in the parent page. Secret account 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this information is very trivial. I'm not even sure you can call some of them characters. Even the ones that might warrant a mention in some way could likely be summarized from scratch easily enough. I support either deletion or redirecting. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. This is what we want folks. That said, as Ned Scott notes, this thing is currently a list of minor "everything" and needs serious cleanup. But cleanup isn't a valid reason to delete. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a policy based reasoning please? Secret account 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced, mostly trivia. Mr.Z-man 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as a valid list. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from England[edit]

List of bands from England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One of these lists in which a category is better served, and may never be complete Delete Secret account 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nominee, far too broad a criteria, list could literally be thousands. Alot of the bands on there fail the criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an indiscriminate list, in that it sorts the prominent (blue-linked) bands and artists by the city in England from which they hail (which a category wouldn't serve, unless there are lots of subcategories too). The "potentially endless" argument is kind of the counterpart to the "it's useful" argument when it comes to being not terribly persuasive. Mandsford (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, far to broad in scope and likely to never be correctly updated. A category is far better. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, better served as a subcategory somewhere else, such as Category:English musical groups.-Wafulz (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd considered that, but the problem I see there is a bunch of subcats called Category:Bands from Bristol, Bands from Brighton, Bands from Birmingham, etc.; and then what do you do if you have a country band from Bristol, Tennessee or Birmingham, Alabama? For that purpose, it seems like a list would be more efficient Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better suited as category. --Funper (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more of an index than just a list and it is interesting to see data arranged in this way. Skip1337 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the points presented above - that a category would "serve better" is not a valid reason for deletion as it is not supported by policy or guideline. The relevant guideline is WP:CLS, which encourages redundancy between lists and categories (they're synergistic, and have editors and readers who favor each system). Sacrificing one system for the other is not good, it wastes useful text and links, it pits list-builders and category-maintainers against each other, and only hurts Wikipedia. (See WP:CLS for details). That a list will never be complete is also not a valid reason for deletion and it isn't supported by policy or guideline either - the main guideline on lists specifically allows uncompletable lists. Note that Wikipedia itself will never be complete. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. Regions have often been influential throughout the history of music, and so the place of origin of a band is significant (e.g., see British Invasion). The topic of the list is not too broad, as this is not a paper encyclopedia, and a list of thousands of items is relatively easy to compile (I've built several - they can be done in less than a day, and some editors have been known to work on a single article or list for weeks). Articles on Wikipedia are scalable and can be split as expanded. Lists are also easier to navigate: scrolling through a list is a lot easier and faster than clicking back and forth and up and down the structure of a category tree. Concerning maintainability, lists are easier and faster to maintain than categories. Lists are much easier to monitor. One problem with categories is that items can disappear from them and there's no way to tell unless you notice that they're missing. When items disappear from a list, this can easily be seen in the list's edit history and diffs. Changes to lists show up on one's watchlist, changes to categories do not. Editing a list is faster because you are working on a single page, which is not subject to compounded server delays as updating category tags is. Macros work a lot faster on a single list than they do on category tagging. And so on. Lists, even of great size, are eminently maintainable. See the huge multi-page list of mathematics topics, for example. Keep. The Transhumanist 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:NOT#DIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."; It does not provide notability on all bands and a number of them doesn't even have articles. This is merely a list of more or less notable bands, sorted by various regions. --Funper (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list provides blue links, and that makes it an index of Wikipedia's articles. Navigation is one of the purposes of lists. The notability or includability of a specific band should be handled on the list's talk page. The Transhumanist 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list can work together with a category if it provides information that a category can't do, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If that's the case, I see no use for the existece of a category. As for WP:LIST, unmaintainbilty is mentioned there. Secret account 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is plagued by articles on NN music bands. The best use of lists is to identify articles that are needed (red links). However, this list will merely attract more redlinks for NN bands, and so encourage the production of NN articles, which them have to go through the AFD procedure. Categories fulfil the purpose much better than lists (except where there are useful redlinks). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists have many uses, one of which is navigation. No one purpose is "better" than the rest. See: WP:LIST. The Transhumanist 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is useful for navigation.--Michig (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a list of every band in England, its a list of those notable enough for WP articles. Yes, there are many of them. All the more reason to have a list , divided usefully by city. it could have other information too--dates might be helpful.; even members would be possible--there are lots of ways the article could be expanded. A few do not have articles yet--either they will be written and the articles will stick, or they will be removed from the lists by editing. There are many other reasons for lists beyond red link removal. Navigation is the main purpose of lists. DGG (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Riders[edit]

Rocket Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Well, I do agree that the article needs expansion now, since when I had nominated the article for deletion, I had no idea why was the article there in the first place. It may have been just like many other non-notable transit advocacy group in Toronto when I first stumbled upon this article. Johnny Au (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other notes, this article is orphaned, since the only mainspace link to this article is 501 Queen (TTC). Johnny Au (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep De-orphaning and expansion are what's needed, as they are clearly notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. as third-party sourcing exists per the link below, try to nominate many of the immates articles for redirecting or deletion though Secret account 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warden Leo Glynn[edit]

Warden Leo Glynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research and extremely unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails WP:FICT. Corvus coronoides talk 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for sourcing concerns, although I'm sure an Oz wiki out there could use the material.-Wafulz (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important character in a notable series. Article needs cleanup and improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If characters are important to a series, we cover them on a character list. Feel free to provide sources if you believe that this can be improved. TTN (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maintanance needed. --Funper (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Karachiwala[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian actor; most notable English-language appearance seems to be as a minor, unnamed character in A Mighty Heart. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. English-language appearances aside, I can't find any information on him other than a filmography. I'll reconsider if someone familiar with Indian actors digs up some sources.-Wafulz (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending sources. The fact his sole English language role is minor is irrelevant, since most of his work has been done in India. Edward321 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper rationale is to delete until sources are found, not to keep assuming that sources will eventually appear.-Wafulz (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. A merger can be pursued on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chambers[edit]

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

Plot summary for a non-notable character from Resident evil. nothing but primary sources and games guides. No real world context. Another article that has had the tags repeatedly removed from with no improvement. Ridernyc (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Central character in a game and novels of the notable Resident Evil franchise, important supporting character in others. Remvoal of tags is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has improved over the weekend to comply with WP:OR and WP:WAF; none of the previous tags really apply. The article however, does need more expansion to include more real universe information. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per the above 2 responses. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable video game character in a notable series of games. As noted, more information has been added. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will all the keeps please show some sourcing for their claims. It's easy to say it's harder to do. Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 11:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Resident Evil characters unless some solid out-of-universe information is dug up from reliable secondary sources. The one cited reference goes through a line of blurb pages until it hits a dead end, hardly reliable. The other sources are in-universe and don't establish the character's notability as a standalone article. I've had a look for sources and found none. Someoneanother 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main character is significant to create an article on --Cs california (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Resident Evil characters. I see a lot of claims that the character is notable, yet no one has provided any strong sources to show this. I just removed some user-written FAQs that were listed as references, as they are not reliable sources, and the remaining sources in the article don't make a strong case for notability. The two game guide references are definitely not independent enough to show notability (and the only information they cite is that the character appears in the games, which shouldn't need a cite, really). The "Background" section is nothing but plot repetition, which should be covered in the game article. If you look at how much of the article is written about the character and not the games, there is shockingly little. I see that the article mentions the model for the character, and that's great, but this is the extent of concept and creation information, which is a basic requirement for a video game character article. What was the inspiration for the character? How did the character design change during conception? What impact has the character had on other video games or other media? What influenced the creation of the character? How did critics regard the character? (And the character specifically, not the game.) This is the sort of information this article needs rather than plot regurgitation and in-universe content. Unless this information can be added and cited to reliable secondary sources, this article cannot hope to expand into an encyclopedic article and merging into the list will better serve the reader. Pagrashtak 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she is a main chararacter in a notable game series. I hav ealso fulfilled the source request by adding published, relliable references and making other improvements to the article: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you have not. Three of those links you provide are minor changes, such as adding a space, adding an s, or changing a period to a semicolon. I don't know why you even bothered linking those. The other two edits add references from player's guides, which are not independent enough to show notability. On top of that, the sentences they reference arguably don't even need citations in the first place, or would be better sourced by citing the video games directly. Pagrashtak 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those references actually do verify much of the rest of the article, but I figured it would be excessive to cite the same sources over and over again throughout the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward321. Seems to me that there is probably plenty of info on Rebecca Chambers throughout the many game publishings that have included Resident Evil over the years. It is a highly notable game series. Seems like something Wikiproject Video Games should really look into not a cause for deletion. Showers (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Rebecca plays a role in the series and not having her character in this would be unencyclopedic, I will work on this article further to make it MORE noteworthy but others must also. SHE IS IMPORTANT. LOTRrules (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main character list - There is basically no content to this article other than video game plot repetition, and despite the many "keeps", there is still no evidence she is important enough to have a whole article as there are still no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morning Sky[edit]

Robert Morning Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable UFOlogist and author. No neutral sources. Only 189 Google hits, none of them reliable. Corvus cornixtalk 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Chi Zeta[edit]

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

Fraternity that claims to exist at one university. No assertion of any notability beyond the local level. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable local organization. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fraternities and sororities present at only one university are generally not notable - Dumelow (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Fraternity organisations are not encyclopaedic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. As for those saying "improve", step up and do it. Mangojuicetalk 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: I.N.T.E.R.V.I.E.W.S.[edit]

Operation: I.N.T.E.R.V.I.E.W.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This special episode does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research and unnecessary plot details. It has the potential for an appropriate amount of information to be covered within List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Improve. It is the said Final Episode. So it should be improved but it doesn't look like it will be. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door. Corvus cornixtalk 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve. The episode is being aired in the U.S. RIGHT NOW, so, knowing CN watchers, it'll DEFINITELY get patched up. Plus, it's the final episode and second movie. Those usually get their own articles anyway.GrandMasterGalvatron (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.127.137 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve - I agree with the previous posters it has been premiered twice in the Philippines and just right now in North American Broadcasts and it showed it detail what was going to happen before it even made it to broadcast. However it needs more data to cover it. SignalMan (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve would mean that sources have been provided, and that they just need to be implemented. Saying that you think its improvable based upon subjective views and predictions does not help here. TTN (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve - Now that the episode has aired in the United States, reviews and stats on its Nielson ratings can be added, which will improve the article. The article could also easily be Wikified, cleaned up, and the Trivia section integrated into the body of the article, but that's easy enough to do as well. This is a long-running series finale: That makes it notable. As a finale, it also deserves its own article as such. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sorry to break the streak of people repeating the word "Improve"). Under the concept of a TV episode having to have something to make it notable beyond being part of a TV series, this one seems to pass that test, since (apparently) The Kids Next Door is a cartoon that has continuity and season finales, which this one seems to be. Not all episodes of Kids Next Door are notable, but this one seems to be important within the context of the series. May someone can, uh, improve it. Mandsford (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finales are not always going to be notable, especially for cartoons, where the first episode is not even notable most of the time. Until sources asserting notability are provided (I'll withdraw this if that's the case), none of those votes should count towards anything. TTN (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Improve this finale must be special (final?) episode deserved to be filling like final espisode of MASH. You cannot do to every epsiodes of shows if they are specials or finales! that is a common sense taht you do not have if you have no brain about deleting as you made a foolish mistake! Cculber007 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without wishing to becoming embroiled in this debate, Animation Insider discussed the show's conclusion with some specific mention of this episode.[69] I am ill-qualified to judge the suitability of that link as a reference in this genre of article. Serpent's Choice (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. Really, the adolescent KND fanbase are hopeless at keeping any of the KND entries remotley professional, but with a little effort, a finale, one of few CN shows to boast one, could stand out.Dr. R.K.Z —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources likely exist. http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=21975 for example seems like a good one as does http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1599. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door[edit]

The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This special episode does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research and unnecessary plot details. It has the potential for an appropriate amount of information to be covered within List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes and List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's merely a crossover episode for two series which end soon or have already ended, it has nothing that justifies its' documenting beyond a small synopsis on the episode lists for the shows in question. Show it the door. --treelo talk 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's no secret that nearly all articles about TV episodes are pure original research. And that there are people who have been spoiled to the point that they think that every friggin episode of every friggin TV show deserves its own friggin article. Under the more restrictive concept of articles only about the episodes that are more notable than average, I think this would pass. Crossover episodes are rare, even in the vast wasteland of television. Even spinoffs do not usually come back together with the parent series. Mandsford (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't fall within either TV show does it? which leaves it as a made for TV special.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve. I despise this show's fanbase because they arent remotley professional or can write an article worth a lick, but this entry is noticible as a special the way others of an animated series are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.K.Z (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep as likely notable. A quick search turned up some reviews. The article sucks though. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Z.E.R.O.[edit]

Operation: Z.E.R.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This TV movie does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research and unnecessary plot details. It has the potential for an appropriate amount of information to be covered within List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again, I'm no fan of episode articles, but it's a made-for-TV film rather than a 10 minute episode, and (here's where the real world crap comes in), it's released as its own DVD. This seems like an aas-backwards approach to nominating articles about Kids Next Door, because I think that most of the episodes of that series would have z.e.r.o. notability at all, and I'd vote for deletion on those. The films, however, are heavily promoted by Cartoon Network, kids tend to look forward to them as a "special event", the ratings are higher, and the quality of writing is usually higher as well in order to keep kids in front of the set for more than 10 minutes. It would make more sense to pick the worst of the bunch instead of the best, if the intent is to get rid of something non-notable. Mandsford (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feature-length film produced for a major television network which has been broadcast. That satisifies notability requirements for its own article. For past precedent (and don't give me that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument as I don't recognize it), see The Man Called Flintstone and Beavis and Butthead Do America. Individual episodes of those shows may not meet Wikipedia's ever-changing standards, but film-length spinoffs do, and that's what Operation: Z.E.R.O. is. 23skidoo (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that those two films are actual films that were released in theaters, right? That is completely different than a TV/strait to DVD movie, as those receive actual coverage, while a TV movie will receive basic "Fun for the family" mentions in a local newspaper at most. TTN (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, you brought up something I hadn't considered, which is that direct-to-DVD kids films actually do get the "fun for the family" mentions from parenting magazines, Entertainment Weekly type magazines, and the like, and sometimes they even get reviewed. We live in an age where straight-to-video often ends up in more viewers (and repeat viewings) than a movie theater film. Thus, I don't see it as being a significant difference. Mandsford (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, those are never signifcant enough to mention, thus nullifying them. "Fun for the family" mentions are usually just lists of kid friendly specials that provide no actual context. Feel free to add sources to prove me wrong, though. TTN (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good arguments for notabiity as a released film by major producer. DGG (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge St. Bridge (Lowell, MA)[edit]

Bridge St. Bridge (Lowell, MA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced and no indication why this bridge among the 40,000 or so in the US is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • IAR prod, or failing that, Delete as not notable. --Thinboy00 @056, i.e. 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bridge, no sources on why this bridge is notable from any others. Secret account 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Corvus coronoides talk 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the author has presented no evidence of notability. I suspect, though, that any large bridge was the subject of considerable newspaper coverage at the time it was being planned, designed and built. But without access to the newspapers of that time which served Lowell, Massachusetts, I can't expand the article to demonstrate notability. If the bridge forms part of a numbered highway, that should have been mentioned, perhaps in the article about the highway if notability can't be demonstrated for the bridge.--Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have to say delete it, because Wikipedia is not a directory, and it also is not notable for any reason. It would be like writing about a stop sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LOCAL. Google searches indicate this bridge (now "Cox Bridge" built in 1937) is a locally significant transportation landmark, but with little significant mention beyond Centralville, Lowell or Tsongas Arena. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some other significance about this bridge (like unique architecture, or inclusion in a historic district) is presented. I can't find much about it, though, although it will get you to the Tsongas Arena, and the bridge is green. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been to Lowell recently. There are lots of notable things in that small city, but this bridge is not one of them. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_22&oldid=1081074453"