Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete'. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Ska

Non-notable music organization, ad, no third-party sources Corvus cornix 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, tagged as such. --Whs itc hy 02:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, only claim to notability appears hoaxy. Krimpet (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golf ball head man

This contested PROD is basically an advert for a Youtube video. No notability that I can see. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a hoax. No Google response for the "Atlantic Canada Independent Film Awards," the website allegedly holding the nomination page doesn't seem to be up and running; I don't see any reliable sources handy. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Whs itc hy 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Alan Liefting 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tony Fox. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Emotions

orphaned for almost a year; only the director has an article about them. I suggest it is non notable Postcard Cathy 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not notable. --Whs itc hy 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn short, doesn't appear to have any distribution, $40,000 budget. Corvus cornix 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not appear notable. The number of red links also says something about the notability of the article. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being listed for almost a year, no attempt has been made to demonstrate the notability of this film. AlphaEta 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Green (Attorney)

I've tried to rescue this article, but I give up. The two references are to completely irrelevant aspects of Mr. Green's life. The one claim to notability, viz. the Mount Everest controversy, merits barely a mention in a web search and, by its nature, is not likely to have been publicized widely. Yechiel Man 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't think he meets WP:BIO. If kept, PLEASE change to Dave Green (American lawyer); attorney is just a fancy self-aggrandizing American word meaning "lawyer". --Charlene 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, attorney is a broader term than lawyer (and not all attorneys are lawyers). Green's work as a lawyer appears to be in the position of corporate attorney (i.e. legal work that goes beyond the courtroom). Small distinction.--Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I smell WP:COI as well --Whs itc hy 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Also there don't seem to be any sources really providing info on the subject. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability asserted for his research. This is material that belongs as a source in Andrew Irvine (mountaineer) or Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the most important info is unsourced Postcard Cathy 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant fanfiction without a sign of notability. ♠P M C♠ 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Xenon

Hoax. Supposed sources cited don't reference subject. Subject does not appear on the official starwars.com database, subject is not present in official guidebooks cited, a google search for the name "Darth Xenon" lists mostly the Wikipedia entry, an entry at a Star Wars fanon wiki, and some roleplaying sites on livejournal. The creator of the article being User:Darth Xenon also raises suspicion that this is a vanity article. "Star Wars: Shadows" graphic novel listed as source does not appear on starwars.com or amazon.com. Also see Drath Xenon, apparently same article with an apparent typo in the name created by same editor. Unless some much more verifiable and substantial proof is found, this appears to be a hoax or fanon character created by the creator of the article. Wingsandsword 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, I wish to add additional evidence:

[1] Said fanon content wiki listing the character. Fanon characters are not notable nor really verifiable.

[2] A google search for "Star Wars: Shadows" the supposed graphic novel source, and "Darth Xenon" only references the Wikipedia article in question.

Delete both Darth and Drath (above in the log). Fan-based claims cannot be countenanced without hard evidence. Yechiel Man 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete both per nom --Whs itc hy 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Xenon, hoax with supposed references that do not substantiate the substance of the article, appears to be a fan-created character from an online roleplaying game. Wingsandsword 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and merged the two deletion discussions together. Directly above is the nomination reason given. The only differences between the two articles is that the correct "Darth" is formatted prettier, and I believe that this is one of the times when a combined nomination is better. -- saberwyn 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fanon is generally non-notable unless unrelated independent third parties are discussing it. I'm not even sure if this would make a Star Wars wiki (if there is one). --Charlene 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Star Wars wiki: Wookieepedia [3] and you are correct, this wouldn't even meet criteria for inclusion in a dedicated Star Wars wiki.

Delete as lacking WP:RS - looks like fan-based stuff. (I could've sworn I'd seen this get deleted before.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that I have just tagged Drath Xenon for speedy since it's otherwise the same. Almost looks like a RPG creation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent fan-fic; if not fan-fic, then there are similar articles linked at Darth#Sith_Lords. JJL 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Clow

Notability is lacking. Establishing two hiking trails in Turkey doesn't do it for me. Clarityfiend 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly nonnotable. Admin, please go through the author's contribs and clean out the one image and two incoming redirects. Yechiel Man 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pioneers have a special place to me. But... article at the moment isn't sourced, and that's the big one. --Whs itc hy 03:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - possible vanity page. Alan Liefting 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional material. (Not quite bad enough for VSCA, though.) The article was created by Earthling plus (talk · contribs), whose only edits are to this article and the two trail articles, which I'm going to tag for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can dig out some sources for her (if she is a big figure in tourism, they could exist). I can't find anything, but they maybe in Turkish-language publications — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. This article should take a hike. Realkyhick 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Deaths

Long, long list of when and how fictional characters died. Unsourced (WP:A), doesn't establish how this is notable per WP:FICTION, might also count as a list of indiscriminate information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major listcruft. --Whs itc hy 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content as appropriate into the existing series articles about this manga: Phantom Blood, Battle Tendency, Stardust Crusaders, Diamond is Unbreakable, Golden Wind, Stone Ocean, and Steel Ball Run. I don't personally see why each person's death needs to be explained in such detail, when just a list on each relevant article would do (unless if the character is of some importance)... but that's for another day. --Kyoko 03:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the list again and thinking about it, probably only notable characters' deaths need to be included in the articles, not the death of every single bystander. --Kyoko 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I just can't make up my mind today. --Kyoko 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, more mangacruft. Realkyhick 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Per WP:NOT#INFO. Also when I first checked out the list, the shear size of it scared the heck out of me. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, massive collection of completely unnotable items. Fails WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horribly written list, incomprehensible to non-fans, and not a worthwhile subject either. Though it is slightly amusing, since it highlights just how absurd some of Araki's death scenes really are. (Personal favorite: "Unzipped to death.") --tjstrf talk 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extreme QUALITY, unlikely to be fully improved+sourced anytime soon. Maybe some merging is possible? --Merovingian ※ Talk 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pro tip: QUALITY is the opposite of quality, in case anybody are confused.--129.241.215.6 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crufty, and is not a good enough subject for it's own list; useless. The Hippie^talk 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the delete. Krimpet (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of names that take the definite article

Unencyclopedic listcruft; violates WP:NOT. dcandeto 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definite delete. Per dcandeto. Clarityfiend 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem, aside from the obvious one, is that usage differs. Some textbooks use "Sudan" while others use "The Sudan" (based on the Arabic), and so forth. Yechiel Man 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just listcruft per dcandeto and unreliable per Yechiel but also potentially inflammatory: many Ukrainians consider the phrase "The Ukraine" as wrong and perhaps even borderline racist depending on who you ask. Having that in a list without comment as 'preferred usage' makes me wonder how many other of these entries would be considered wrong. --Charlene 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a bit strange, as Ukrainian has no definite article. That would also make transwikiing this article difficult. dcandeto 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's a good rundown of how that came about. Certainly since independence the official position of the Ukraine government has been to prefer no article in translation. But it was long common when it was just a "region". That's the crux of why it's sensitive.--Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether a name takes a definite article or not is purely speculative. Is it "The Dixie Chicks" or just "Dixie Chicks"? "The Mall at Hays" or just "Mall at Hays"? "The city of Whittemore or just "City of Whittemore"? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete going to get huge, unmanageable, and just all around pointless. --Whs itc hy 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a general list this is indiscriminate. Some bands (e.g. Nine Inch Nails) emphatically do not take the article, so distinguishing bands a more discriminate approach. This list seems like it could be useful if sourced, and no doubt other versions of the list are out there. But I'm not sure it needs an article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Sr 13 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted High School Musical (album)

No official information on the album (or that it will even be an album); Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nowayout203 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - obliterate it. No references, no verifiability, no article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Definitely WP:CRYSTALlized here. (If we get a WP:SNOW, would that make it a snowglobe?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who's going to be the snowman then?
Snow Delete per above above. --Whs itc hy 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per above --St.daniel ^Talk 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharie Jacob

Non-notable biography - does not assert notability and contains no references to support it. Ozgod 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this the same actor (aka Montfleury) despised by the hero in the play Cyrano de Bergerac? It's the right time period, c. 1640. If so, then definitely Keep and add to article. Strong keep. I've added the Cyrano connection to the article. Clarityfiend 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote for the moment. If the connection can be proven, I'd say it's a strong keep personally. see below --Whs itc hy 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep see [4] page two, bottom. --Whs itc hy 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although careful reading of Whstchy's source indicates that the play mocks Zacharie's son Antoine Jacob de Montfleury. I think both probably deserve articles. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll admit, I was confused over who was being mocked. --Whsitchy 05:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I believe it is Zacharie who is being mocked. In the body of the article, it says that Z. had a large stomach (and died partly because of it), and the sidenote about Cyrano refers to it as well. It is not stated whether Antoine was similarly rotund. Also, Z. was the actor, as is the character in the play. Cyrano derides the character's acting skills. Clarityfiend 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I changed my mind again. The article is pretty confusingly formatted, but it seems clear that both father and son were involved in the feud in different ways. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A tag asking for sources might have been more appropriate than an Afd even for a dude from like the olden days. Nick mallory 05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory, although I'd think a tag would be more appropriate given that he's from the olden days. Someone doesn't stop being notable simply because the information on him is in older books not easily found in the average American public library. --Charlene 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My automatic assumption is that something that rated an article in the 1911 Britannica is 99% likely to remain notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd likely add 1% to that. --Charlene 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Could use another source or two, but this seems obviously notable. Realkyhick 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Strange nomination. If the guy made enough of an impact that he is remembered three centuries later surely he merits coverage in the wikipedia, without regard to whether the article contains the magic phrase "...is notable because...". When I start an article shortly after going through {{afd}} hell, I sometimes try to find a way to insert that magic phrase. It always reads very artificially to me. It is a policy that bugs me.
- Disclaimer — Lack of an assertion of notability was one of the justifications nominator used when nominating an article I started for deletion. So I decided to take a look at the pattern of his nominations for {{afd}}, and the opinions he expressed in other {{afd}} fora.
- FYI — Nominator is currently a candidate for administrator.
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor of Modern History, Glasgow

Doesn't seem like a notable position at all. No evidence of it meriting its own article Yonatan ^talk 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unlike the USA (where the term has been devalued so that every univerity lecturer is a professor), the title refers in Great Britain to the head of a university department or another senior and distingusihed academic. Glasgow is one of our older universities. I consider that the post is automatically notable. The fact that few of the holders have articles merely inducates that there is work to be done. Peterkingiron 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but no. If the list were for a dean or a similar position, I'd probably keep it. --Whsitchy 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This position would presumably be one level lower than a dean in the heirarchy: head of a department, but not of a faculty. I think that's enough. JulesH 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. Recommend all positions on that list be merged as well. I don't see that the chair itself is worth having an article for. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm with Dhartung; the lists of professors who have occupied the chairs, and the sentences about their founding (which are the only content these articles have), are not so long that they couldn't all be merged into List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. Deor 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is no reason for this particular position to have a seperate article from the fairly short List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But isn't that just a directory of lists like the one nominated here? JJL 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Make the list article into the compilation, with brief descriptions before each. Some positions may still merit separate articles. (Wow — professorships that go back to the 1600s!) Realkyhick 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really do not see what you are proposing for the merge--the main article is simply a list of the chairs, not the holders. There are 38 professorships listed, with an average of about 10 incumbants. Is it seriously proposed that the article will be better with the 38 sections? Or is it proposed that we should not have the information at all? Since all of these people are certainly notable, a category would do, except that 3/4 of the articles haven't been written. That suggests the third possibility--to do stub articles for every one of the 400 or so, with succession boxes and categories. And there's a fourth--to expand the list with basic biographic data for each of them,which is much faster then writing all those articles. Personally, i consider all 4 ways as satisfactory: separate pages for each chair, one gigantic page, separate articles for each professor, a list for each chair with sections for each professor. I think we should get a much more general consensus before deciding, since it will be a good deal of work either way, & will set precedents for a great many other pages. DGG 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as some one who voted Keep above, I fullky support DGG. Peterkingiron 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand so it isn't just a list. Lurker 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is much more useful as an individual article, because merging would become unweildly with large numbers of entries for each individual holder of the position. If this were repeated for instance for articles like Professor of Divinity, Glasgow (which is a substantially older chair having been held by 27 people), the article would become huge. JulesH 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unwieldy to merge, as per User:DGG, and UK professors - at any rate, at the older universities - are pretty much notable by definition, unlike US ones, as per User:Peterkingiron. HeartofaDog 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable position; list of holders is useful for building the web. John Vandenberg 07:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Achberger

nn pro wrestling fan. Claim to "fame" is that he holds up signs at selected WWE shows. This fails WP:BIO, as the only sources available are from WWE publications, which in turn as questionable as WP:RS. There is no need whatsoever for him to have an article here. He is not official WWE "talent" either, and even members of the creative team and other on-screen personalities have had articles deleted. Biggspowd 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the other AFD for a wrestling related figure I was in, this seems to be fancruft. --Whs itc hy 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WWE stuff doesn't really meet WP:RS, and I'm not sure that the rest of the article indicates notability. He's not an official part of the show, he's just a fan who gets some face time. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the articles creator I feel I must speak on this. First, Rick Achberger was a requested article here. Second, I'm not sure why you dont consider WWE a reliable source Biggspowd, but even so, that is not the only sources I have as you said, I have a online newspaper article from Lufkin Daily News (there is also a newspaper article in The Detroit News that metions him) and a commerical he did for the USA Network. Also, a google search of WWE Sign Guy comes back with 1,280,000 results. And what about his time on the game show Deal or No Deal? Rick qualifies for at least three of the criteria listed in WP:BIO: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.", "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition", and "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" So as you can see, he is much more than "just a fan who gets fan who gets face time" as you said Tony Fox. How can one man who has been has had magazine articles, multiple newspaper articles, several TV spots, and widespread internet coverage be considered a "non-notable person"?? Stormin' Foreman 06:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should let you all know that the above user created the article. Also, with your google search, you need to put in it quotes, and when you do, it's just 650 hits. And every source is WWE-related, or through their PR department, and most of the sources are not reliable and are written in-universe. There isn't a need for this article, and just because someone put a "request" for it doesn't mean it belongs automatically. Biggspowd 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out of the ring, No deal. He's just an attention-seeking fan. Only way he would be notable is if he were another Steve Bartman. And AFAIK, there are no articles about individual Deal or No Deal contestants. Clarityfiend 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having your face on TV is not enough to make you notable. Also, the sources listed here are not "intellectually independent" nor are they "independent of the subject." They are wrestling magazines and therefore are quite involved with the subject and therefore are probably not reliable. --Hnsampat 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you should view the article again and actually look at the sources this time, unless you're seriously suggesting that www.lufkindailynews.com is a wrestling magazine and/or owned by WWE. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get nasty. --Hnsampat 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lufkin Daily News is just a newspaper from a small town in Texas. I'm not sure if it can be a reliable source, and if so, he's still not close to notable. Biggspowd 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — over the top rope. Lufkin Daily News is only reliable source. If getting on radio or TV is grounds for notability, then I'm notable. Realkyhick 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of top World Champions in WWE by combined length

nn listcruft for how long professional wrestlers held titles in a predetermined outcome. This info is very crufty, redundant, and is not needed here. There are already plenty of related pages (questionable in notability) that exist for this info. Prod was removed. Biggspowd 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Whs itc hy 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is constantly changing, arbitrarily selected and genuinely disinteresting. McPhail 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. What in the Sam Hill is this, anyway? Realkyhick 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest to merge the information to List of WWE Champions, but I'm not sure how important the number of days a person held a title is. That list already has the date that the person won the title, and the date that the following person won the title, so the time is already mentioned there. The question remains if the number of days is necessary. If so, then merge and delete this page. Pepsidrinka 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNENC clause 9. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Elrith 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Time Is It? (Summertime!)

he original creator of this page suggested to me, after I redirected it for WP:CRYSTALyness, that I revert and nominate for AfD to gauge consensus (he believes that there may be sufficient notability, and I think he has a point, so I abstain) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If it's a single, it's likely bound to chart -- and if it charts, that would make it notable. The song debuted but recently, and I can't find anything that says it's on the charts yet, but I'm leaning towards letting it stay on the grounds that it's been confirmed as a single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 2 (album), unless it IS confirmed as a single (as TPH said). G1ggy! 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is a confirmed single, according to the Disney press release. Nowayout203 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the press release:
On July 17, Walt Disney Records will release a commercial CD single of "What Time Is It."
--Whsitchy 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add on comment I don't see any WP:CRYSTAL at all here. It's been played already, how is that falling under that? --Whs itc hy 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per Whstchy. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, though I think it sucks. Realkyhick 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with High School Musical 2 (album). Notable, yes, but is there enough info that this will ever be more than a stub page? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable as a Disney release, and it's not yet been released. i.e. notability will rise. John Vandenberg 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobbly Wobbly

Nonnotable dog toy. No sources or references other than that of the company that manufactures it. The article somewhat like an advert, and there seems to be little hope for the article to become more than that. ***Clamster 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete. Does not pass WP:N. Has no third-party attribution. I'm not finding any independent third parties discussing it. --Charlene 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, feed it to the dog, not notable. Realkyhick 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable toy, with little chance for expansion. --Nehrams2020 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Carrera

Seems like a cheat sheet for the video game. 650l2520 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cheatsheet. G1 gg y ! 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a how-to guide to unlock the character. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. DarkAudit 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all point above. Alan Liefting 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this info. can go on the game's page if it's needed (e.g., at least the existence of the character might be worth mentioning). JJL 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no cheat sheets, please. Realkyhick 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TONE. Carlosguitar 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not GameFAQs. QuagmireDog 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton ^Assistance! 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy

I removed a {{prod}} from this article, because I'm not sure of notability (but think it is). I'm adding it here because I'd like to see a community perspective on it. Abstain G1 gg y ! 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Why is this being listed? J. D. Redding 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Becuase G1ggy wanted community input on the book's notability. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Because it was tagged with a prod stating that it was not notable, and I'm not sure if that's true. I didn't want to just remove the tag and leave it (in case it should be deleted), so I removed the tag and brought it here. G1 gg y ! 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who prodded the book. I'm unable to find a single review of the book or any other non-trivial reliable source and the book has only about 600 google hits even counting duplicates (see this search which doesn't even use the full title). JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? This is well known recent biography of Tesla. The only other one would be Wizard. J. D. Redding 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have any sources that so that this is well known? I'd be happy to keep the book if we have non-trivial reliable sources that talk about the book, but so far the best I've found is a short paragraph description here. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think I get what you mean by "RS. Is that to discount the general public that have cited the work? I'll see some review in NYT or something ... but anyone that looks into Nikola Tesla will come up with all the book that are listed in the further reading, as cited below. There is not alot more biographies out there (I have looked). J. D. Redding 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a side note, it is cited in David S Alexander's paper titled, "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II". J. D. Redding 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are some libraries that have the book. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/50931289 J. D. Redding 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having the book and having it cited doesn't make it notable. I'm sure it is an interesting book, heck I'll probably read it when I get a chance. But if we don't have any reliable sources about the subject were a bit paralyzed. JoshuaZ 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #348,887 in Books" Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I have input. But it is notable in regards to Nikola Tesla, listed in the Nikola Tesla#Further reading for some time. One of the few solid references for him. J. D. Redding 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (PS., I was going to do all the books there, if they are not shot down everytime.)[reply]
- comment If they have reliable sources that talk about the books so the books are notable so that we can actually write things that aren't original research then that's fine. I would suggest finding reliable sources such as book reviews before writing the articles or be ready to provide such sources. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using primary material results in secondary material; this article is secondary material. This is not WP:OR (which is primary material alone without any sources). I'll also look around for some other secondary sources, though. J. D. Redding 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia policy requires articles to be tertiary, not secondary material. JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I can see points for for and against, will wait out. --Whs itc hy 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I just read in this article, it seems ok, it has references to, if there are issues lets just clean it up, no reason to delete it (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.There's only one independent review linked from the article, and it's brief, but quite strong: in Midwest Book Review, "mandatory reading for all students of Tesla". —David Eppstein 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll use that quote in the intro, if that is ok? J. D. Redding 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. —David Eppstein 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep now that I've found a second published review (Nexus magazine, as listed in the article). —David Eppstein 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's borderline notable with two independent sources so let's give the benefit of doubt to keeping. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, yes there are reviews. I've been unable to locate a copy of the issue of Nexus to view that, but if it's anything like the first review, I'd say the depth of coverage isn't enough to justify this article. I'm also concerned about whether or not Nexus should be considered a reliable source, as what I see about it suggests that it has a rather strong bias towards espousing fringe theories. Also, the book is a small press book (such books are rarely notable) from a press that seems best known for its coverage of psuedoscientific subjects. JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been out 5 years and only has 2 reviews. No mention in any of the publications covered by Proquest. It appears to contain a fair amount of "free energy" pseudoscience, and is full of claims that Tesla did thus and such when the history of the matter shows failures to excite energy waves in the earth or the atmosphere. His actual contributions in normal alternating current motors and generators are given little coverage per the contents, in favor of claims that endless energy can be gotten without use of prime movers or fuel. Hoaxy. Edison 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any real reason why this should be deleted? A few years and some reviews is a good notable topic. There are others. BTW, the POV BS about his "actual contributions" neglects the information in various reliable sources. The history of the matter shows Wireless energy transfer (such as his experiments with the magnifying transmitter) was proven by Tesla. J. D. Redding 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Fails WP:BK quite solidly. The first review is very short and so does not count as "non-trivial". The Nexus review I cannot find, but without the other review there can be no claim of "multiple ... publications" on this book. No other assertion of notability exists. --EMS | Talk 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not match my understanding of "non-trivial" — it's intended, as I understand it, more to refer to situations such as a book title appearing as part of a longer list of titles but not discussed in any detail. E.g. WP:N gives as an example of "trivial coverage" a one-sentence mention of a band in a biography of someone else. —David Eppstein 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N has recently been changed from requiring "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources" to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Significant seems to me to be a higher bar than non-trivial, although there is the implication that a single in-depth source would be adequate. But I'm still unsure that Nexus is a reliable source, being primarily a publisher of fringe theories. JulesH 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article reads like a book review, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Is that what WP is for? Amazon.com has an open facility for readers to write book reviews. I would suggest that is where this belongs. I am not clear what WP policy is on this, but would have thought that a book would need to be very notable (or notorious e.g. controversial) to require a WP article. The article is presumably adequately sourced - it describes a book and the book is itself the source. The appropriate course is to ensure that the views expressed in the book are reflected in the WP biographical article on Tesla, and to cite the book as the source for that. However, I hope that the article's author can find ways to contribute substantive articles on the broader subject of the History of Science and Technology; I am sure there is more to be done on this. Peterkingiron 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are not clear on WP policy on articles about books, WP:BK would be a good place to start. —David Eppstein 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the policy on whether or not we should have an article about a book, not what the content of the article should be. I don't think there is such a policy, to be honest, although it would probably be somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Writing about fiction if it did exist. And, no, I don't think this article is appropriate as it stands: it spends too much time discussing the topic of the book, rather than the book itself. The article should focus on placing the book in context in the world by describing the critical reaction to it, IMO. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been enough reaction to it to produce such an article. JulesH 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an article on the book is warranted, and the current content isn't worthless. The introduction could be cut down to avoid duplicating info already on related articles. John Vandenberg 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book has an ISBN number ISBN-13: 978-1931882040 and therefore meets threshold standards. The content of the book may be WP:Fringe, but the book exists and if there are any problems with the article content itself (such as POV) then those should be fixed. The article editors should be asked for any factual material and the tone should be suitably fixed. Tagging for deletion should not be used for gathering feedback from others because one does not understand a subject. Use of prods to force article improvement is also in bad taste. Shyamal 07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

GOD JESUS WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO WIKI FAGGOTS

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

The result was SMITE WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE. Krimpet (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conspiracy, God-Jesus robot is real...unlike god and jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.145 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOD-JESUS

This article should be deleted. It is about a non-notable toy, with very little information available anywhere, other than by buying it. It has basically no notability. If it WAS notable, an entry on a single Happy Meal toy would be considered notable, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zuxtron (talk • contribs).

Delete - non-notable toy; it's known mainly for being amusing to English speakers. --Haemo 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not only is it not notable, I belive it is violation WP:OR considering the fact that the external links provides no info on the subject.
--Random ^{Say it here!} 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete See above. Plus, engrish.com is not a good resource. --Whs itc hy 03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting bit of trivia however, Alan Liefting 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was super delete. --Core desat 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super changeup

Not notable, there is no such pitch in mainstream baseball. At best the article should be merged into the main Changeup article. Zerbey 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like original research. "... it is taking hold in high school baseball." Really? Can this claim be sourced, and substantiated? Charlie 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be established that this term is actually in use, redirect to Eephus pitch. Otherwise, delete. Deor 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Eephus pitch is more like a curveball, not a changeup. Zerbey 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. Recommend against a redirect to eephus pitch, as there is nothing referring to a 'super changeup' in that article. Based on the description of this pitch, the two are actually completely different. DarkAudit 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (no merge). hmwith talk 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Definite delete, and I don't feel it should be merged either. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen people throw it before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.169.85 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. PeaceNT 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes

Not a list, rather a very poorly written WP:OR episode guide. No sources. Hús ö nd 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, seems okay now. Nomination withdrawn.--Hús ö nd 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Definitely WP:OR, and also just plain ugly to read. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a Question - why is this episode list, other than fixable formatting issues, significantly different from any other episode list on WIkipedia? We allow lists of episodes for TV series and "just plain ugly to read" is not a legitimate reason for deleting one. Personally I don't give a fig about the series but see no reason why its episode list should be treated differently from any other series. Otto4711 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please observe WP:CIVIL. Allowing mistakes to endure as a whole instead of focusing on their correction or removal is a bad, bad procedure.--Hús ö nd 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that throwing around baseless accusation of incivility is itself uncivil. You have not clearly established that this list is a "mistake" or that it constitutes original research, nor have you explained why this list of episodes should be treated any differently from the very many articles in Category:Lists of television series episodes or why this list is not in line with WP:EPISODE, which suggests that lits like this be created rather than individual articles for each episode. Otto4711 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with your remark on incivility. Please feel free to reprehend me if I ever throw around any baseless accusations of incivility.--Hús ö nd 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. if there were sources or proof, I'd keep, but I can't. --Whsitchy 15:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What exacly are you suggesting needs to be proven? The series appears to exist. Otto4711 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not denying the series existing, I'm saying the episode list looks like OR... but then again, it's an TV episode, kinda hard to avoid that, vote retracted. Whs itc hy 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs work but in-line with other episode lists. JJL 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Could use some work, yeah, but I can't see any reason for this show to not have an episode list.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and wikify see above Whs itc hy 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, except Shining Gundam --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GF13-0

(View AfD)

Let me start by saying that Gundam is important and we have many Gundam-related articles that meet our inclusion standards. These, however, do not. This batch of 18 mobile fighters is neither important nor notable. Sure, it is perfectly possible to find primary sources (i.e. the television series) that can be used to document these, but the search to find out-of-universe secondary sources appears to be futile.

In some of our previous discussions regarding other Gundam articles, there were proposals to mass-merge many articles together. If there is an encyclopedia article to be found here, it certainly won't be made by a mass cut-and-paste into a single article.

The following articles are nominated for deletion:

If anyone has a reason to move any of these into individual nominations, please say so. --- RockMFR 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of these articles assert notability. Even their importance is scarce, but importance and popularity are nothing to do with notability, they are irrelevant towards an article's existence. --Teggles 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have to agree. There is really no assertion of notability. I don't feel you need a redirect either, because this is not going to be a commonly if at all searched subject. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but one As much as I like Gundam, that's too many. I vote keep the main character's (shining gundam). --Whs itc hy 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular article is now withdrawn. --- RockMFR 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. Unsourced fancruft. MER-C 12:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rewrite: I would say to just merge into two seperate articles (Major and Minor Mobile suit pages) and trim down the articles to reduce plot summary due to the previous articles have too much plot detail and make the summary a lot less like a cheap copy from MAHQ.net, since character pages or plot material would be much more appropriate for minor plot details, then personally add sources from the episodes and other real world facts through other sources. -Adv193 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think it would be a good idea to just merge these articles with their Gundam pilots from the Manga and Anime...The ones with insignificant pilots and importance, such as Tequila gundam or Toro gundam should be deleted or merged into an article called Minor Gundams from the G Gundam Series-ShadowStange11 18:13, 28 May 2007 (EST)
Comment: If you like to a see a merged article of minor mobile suits check out-List of minor mobile suits in Gundam Wing which has many of Gundam Wing's mobile suits together with sources and summaries that aren't too long with the Technical data in an infobox. -Adv193 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a List article, which can be separated by series for convenience. The list can be in the form of a table where certain story-relevant information (e.g. faction, pilot's name, etc.) can be included. Mecha data should be off-loaded to some other website that can be linked as an external link from the List article. Existing articles should be redirected to the List article. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List article as per previous work on minor MS/characters. Jtrainor 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Shining Gundam and Master Gundam since they are the series' main protagonist and antagonist's units

Your argument is invalid. Their importance doesn't matter. Read WP:NOTABILITY. It clearly states that importance and popularity have nothing to do with notability; notability is when there are multiple reliable sources for the subject. --Teggles 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As with Adv193, I feel that the merging of the above articles into seperate list articles based on the significace each has within the overall plot of the series would be best. Azureman 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the minor characters into a single page. Major characters keep their pages. This seems in keeping with how other fictional character situations are handled. The characters from Brave New World ahve all been made redirects to the novel's article; they seem more notable than a long list of robots...—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxx Blacc

Appears to be NN actor as per WP:PORNBIO. Originally prodded, but as it was contested I opened up this AFD instead. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Whs itc hy 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shouldn't have been protested (the prod)..none of the 5 valid criteria apply on him.--The Joke النكتة‎ 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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