Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esprit15d (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 8 November 2007 ({{subst:afd3|pg=Shelli Yoder}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 7 November 9 >

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. W.marsh 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelli Yoder

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

This went up for prod, but I wasn't sure if the winner of a state pageant was notable or not. Brought it here for discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As the PROD initiator, I vote for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. By the way: Is it appropriate for an editor, following the expiration of a PROD (which fact User:Esprit15d fails to mention), change the rules and create an AfD? The entire Wikipedia community had five days to remove the PROD and prove the article is notable. No one did. I do not appreciate User:Esprit15d's unprofessional and capricious actions. Maplewooddrive 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My actions aren't even remotely out of harmony with policy. To avoid future misinformed tirades, you need to familiarize yourself with the policy here (especially read under procedure for administrators, which is the relevant portion to this incident).--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the article had already been deleted or Esprit15d were not an admin, there remains a perpetual right to request undeletion under the PROD policy. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to ۝ and my fellow Wikipedians on this page for my strong language. I guess my frustration got the better of me. I should always assume good faith (as per WP:AGF).Maplewooddrive 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even admins like me can make mistakes. All's forgiven. Happy editing!--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 12:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted. by admin Tone. W.marsh 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratty Daughter (House of Bloo's)

This article is about a character who appeared in one episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Just one. It should be deleted and fast. YuckieDuck 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade 2000

Beyblade 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think every season of a tv show is supposed to have an article (I did a quick search on various sci-fi shows and none of them to be knowledge had specific seasonal articles). Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. These seasonal articles have none of those context or analysis.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, that is non-notable seasonal articles:
Beyblade_V-Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beyblade_G-Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Macktheknifeau 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. As per arguments made just yesterday. This is/was a program that is shown globally. Google test 'Beyblade cartoon' comes up with a lot of results. Why the hate? --EndlessDan 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has nothing to do with the original articles AFD. Regardless of if it was "shown globally", these season articles do not warrant their own page. Macktheknifeau 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then what's your argument? According to your nomination, it's that *you* don't feel that every show deserves it's own page. Which I agree with, to an extent. However, this isn't a local access show we're discussing. When a show yields hundreds of results as per a simple Google test and is screened in multiple countries - this clearly demonstrates notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Macktheknifeau is stating that individual seasons of a show do not inherently deserve an article, nor do they inherit notability from the show itself. -- 68.156.149.62 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The seasons have no notability, nothing I could find supports the notion that they should have seperate articles on each season, and the articles make no attempt to show why each specific season of this tv show is notable. Delete these non-notable season articles, and put them in the original page's thread. Macktheknifeau 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zamball

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

Prodded but removed by original editor with no explanation. This article appears to be a hoax. There are no references provided, and searching through Google reveals nothing in the short search results to support this article. Whpq 13:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above & Beyond Children's Museum

Above & Beyond Children's Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded, unclear notability. Prod removed Moglex 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the museum has been the subject of multiple articles in a reliable newspaper. The museum's effort to remain open despite financial problems has been controversial. Royalbroil 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article talks about floor space and financial problems but does not address notability in any meaningful way. It appears to be a worthy regional project that does not reach the level of notability. --Stormbay 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's the subject of independent secondary sources. The article putting too much emphasis on floor space and financial problems is a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete museum with no claim of notabilty, travelwisconsin is a travel guide, and the other two sources are the local newspaper, which isn't really independent. If more sources are added outside the local area, will change vote. This is a Secret account 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The struggle to stay afloat financially is gripping and predominates in the references. The references do not address notability and that is the crux of this discussion. --Stormbay 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would not have been stories about its financial problems unless those secondary sources considered it notable. Business struggle all the time, but not all of them are covered in the press. --Oakshade 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination appears to have been inadvertantly duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Rudnick. Note the space in that debate's name that is lacking in this debate's title. Both noms took place on the same day, so it is appears to be an inadvertant duplication (as opposed to a second debate following DRV or some such circumstance). The article was deleted on 13 November after this debate was closed, but the other debate remained open. As no editors noted reasons to Keep the article, the result does not appear to be in question - however, I wanted to ensure that the situation was noted here for the record. I have ended the duplicate debate as a non-admin closure. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rudnick

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

Mr. Rudnick has NOT been the subject of 1)A credible independent biography 2) Widespread coverage over time in the media 3) Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources 4) n depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field. And this is just the start Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benton

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

Do I really need to to get into it? Look at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) and then look at this article. I think it's clear. I fact, this damn thing should have been long gone by now. Damn it. I guess if I were to add an arguement in favor of deletion I would begin by just reminding us that Danny Boy has NONE of the following working in his favor; The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. But you can't blame th sorry sap, I mean, he's only 24 Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits are all to self-penned references. No independent sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Sports blogger for AOL and MSG (a regional cable/radio network), but only writes for group blogs. Sports bloggers don't even have profiles at either site, so these are not exactly high-profile endeavors. Unable to confirm the claim of writing for Sports Illustrated and Yahoo Sports, or any claim regarding guest radio/podcast appearances. Maralia 14:05, 8 November 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 redirected. W.marsh 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic data center

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

Dynamic data center concerns a non-noteworthy corporate neologism.-- Mumia-w-18 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded. Oops. A Google search seems to show that it's noteworthy. Sorry everyone.-- Mumia-w-18 14:49, 6 November 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 (A1) by Charles Matthews. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haru Kotobakanata

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

Same as previous VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Foley (actor)

Jeremy Foley (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You want reasons? okay, I'll give you reasons. Here's just a few to get the conversation started -- Roley Foley has NONE of the following 1) significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. 2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3 unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Just because one doesn't "have" these things does't mean one is not a good actor. It just means one is an actor with NO business being on Wikipedia. Read the guidelines. Read the article. Read between the lines. Let's delete this vanity and move on with out lives Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough yet for a page of his own. Looking at it again I think he does, just, qualify. So Keep Alberon 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least three incoming mainspace links. Imdb says he played in a lot of things, including playing a named character for 31 episodes in a notable TV show (Caitlin's Way). Notable enough for me. – sgeureka t•c 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I created this page so I guess I considered him notable enough to have a page. He was a Monster of the Week for Buffy, and a main character in a television show that lasted 2 seasons. WookMuff 01:46, 9 November 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 in lieu of relisting or deleting, I'm going to redirect to DevilDriver. Seems like a standard redirect. W.marsh 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Boecklin

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

Let's ask ourselves whether Mr. Boecklin - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.[3] Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Kasearu & Paradise Crew

Kristjan Kasearu & Paradise Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was prod'ed for being non-notable, but the Eurovision contest in big. I wanted to bring it here for discussion.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You know, it might be notable for Estonia. The biggest band in a nation, even if it's a smaller nation, might be notable in different ways than the typical band. I can find no evidence of that in english, though my search was only a cursory one. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - 7th doesn't count as "placed", does it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:44, 15 November 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. Hut 8.5 07:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV overturns to a CSD G4 speedy deletion. Xoloz (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Reid

Patrick A. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well, let's begin with asking ourselves a few question (inspired by wikipedia guideline). Is/Has 1)The person regarded as an important figure or widely cited by their peers or successors? 2)The person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? 3)The person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? 4)The person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. ? Now, let's not lie to ourselves anymore Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:40, 8 November 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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Cumbria

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

I seem to recall that there was a policy against local chapters of larger organisations having their own pages. In any case, the article says that there is scouting in Cumbria, then provides us with links to outside websites for the various chapters, which I know is against Wikipedia policy. Nothing on the page suggests anything at all notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

The Scouting Project guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS#Non-national articles is derived from the WP guideline. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:38, 9 November 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 (G11) by GRBerry. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalised curriculum

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

This article appears to be primarily an advertisement for the Praht Thai School and its teaching methods; there are no sources that would support that this is a significant or widely discussed educational concept. This AfD should include other articles with a similar problem by the same creator:

Not sure how to address your concerns but this is a project that exists and is being delivered in answer to the growing problem of education quality in the Asian region. It is entirely factual and real. It is far from an advertisement but an acknowledgement and explanation of a new methodology in dealing with this important area of education. Please do not censor what needs to be told Praht Thai School is the first to utilise and implement this programme and the only place people can currently see it in action. They must be part of the process - they are the pioneers.This form is the pilot for what it is hoped will become the standard national curriculum form for many countries in the region. It has been the work collaboration of many ministries including Singapore and Australian Ministries of Education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs)


Delete: Written like an essay and/or advertisement for the school. Unsourced, unnotable, subject. SpigotMap 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi\ Thank you for your feedback but as this article refers to a new methodology just released the kind of cross references you mentioned may be difficult to source. I will however look for them and include them as I find them. This IS important information and balances areas you have not touched on in relation to the area such as the article on parallel immersion which appears to be written by the school mentioned in that article. The work pertaining to the Internationalised curriculum has been conducted by many people over a number of years. While one of the founders of the syllabus has worked closely to ensure the roll out of the first school is successful, this refers to its implementation and affect not to its commerciality. This is every bit as important a milestone as syllabuses such as IB curriculum and Wikipedia is a place that such major breakthroughs should be found not censored. Please reconsider your stance and maintain this important information online —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstand how wikipedia works. ALL content must be written in an encyclopedic manner, must be sourced by independent secondary sources, per WP:RS. Essays are not part of the (front-end) of wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. Subjects also must pass WP:N. SpigotMap 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to explain how important it is; those kinds of comments aren't really helpful. All we need are the reliable sources that verify its importance. If no such sources exist, then the subject is not notable, and it'll be deleted no matter how important it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main article was just speedied. Michaelbusch 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Middle School

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

This article about a middle school does not assert notability. A PROD was removed with comment: "ususally dont delete schools", but without addressing the notability issue. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD#G3. Wikipedia isn't a place for completely unverifiable "religions" made up last week. You don't have to do even a "gentle stretching of WP:CSD#G3" to apply this to such a blatant nonsense page creation.--Isotope23 talk 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieferism

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

Hoax. PRODded by another editor, PROD removed with no reasoning given. No GHits to reliable sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we can apply that here. The article claims the religion was founded a week ago and has now grown to a "Major, moderated religion". This isn't the case of a page made by someone with a unique, but sincere religious belief, but a clear case of silly vandalism. I think it qualifies as a case of hoax nonsense as specified here as it is so blatant WP:CSD#G1.Alberon 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having conducted a good-faith Google search, I have found no evidence that this is a religion practiced by a significant number of people, or which has been written about in reliable sources. It appears that this religion is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia to require an article about it. That, and it's a fairly obvious and not particularly interesting joke page which could reasonably have been speedy-deleted as nonsense. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Arlene Fraser

Murder of Arlene Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OK. I created this article as it seems to be a notable murder case, and was surprised that Wikipedia didn't have anything about it already. However, it may violate WP:NOT#NEWS, although this particular case seemed to have generated continued media interest in the part of the world that I come from. I don't know, what do you think - is the case notable and Wikipedia-worthy? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's good of you to nominate your own article. As to what to do with it: it does not seem very notable, but the book on it would suggest a sufficiency of notability to cause the author to write it. I'm going to guess that this debate will be more about whether people are deletionists or not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a multitude of sources about the case since 1998 from both the BBC and the Scotsman newspaper alone that I can find, and a book about the case, excluding all the other news references that I haven't looked at yet, or stuff that isn't available online. But that's why I nominated it - I want to see if people think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Certainly the case seems to have had more than temporary notability...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also mention that this is the third article that I have created myself that I have nominated for deletion within the past two weeks. I'm not sure exactly why I do this, but it isn't mere attention-seeking. It's the fact that I don't seem to have faith in myself that if I make an article about something, especially a pop culture/news-related subject, that it is truly notable despite the existence of sources. This is because I assume that Wikipedia would have an article about it already if it was notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I get the feeling that if this case had happened in the United States, Wikipedia would have had an article on it already and no one would have considered deleting it. News coverage has extended for far longer than in the Madeleine McCann case, although obviously not quite in the same manner as the latter's extreme and constant press coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely the existence of a book written seven years after the event establishes notability, in the same way that the existence of an independent biography does for biographical article. Good to see that the article is called Murder of Arlene Fraser rather than Arlene Fraser because it's the event that is notable, not the person. Phil Bridger 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static

Also much of the information is confirmed in the 26 ghits if you bothered to read them in entirety... many of which are show listings and bio info on the artist's own myspace page confirms that they are indeed from San Francisco and have indeed used other monkiers, while this may not be the most credible source th information has at least been suggested and if there is better information feel free to update the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a noise band, you may not find it relevant, but thats because your not privy to it's pertainence... No reason to delete it... reason for you not to read it. If there is inaccuracy feel free to edit it and make it more accurate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vaguely asserts notability, but isn't notable anyway. The 26 unique ghits do not verify this article. MER-C 10:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xavener

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites Gavin Collins 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenh

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could perhaps be merged into some sort of geographical overview of the kingdoms and regions of Greyhawk, but Tenh is an important element of the fiction that's being discussed, here. Of particular note is the Living Greyhawk campaign (a Wizards of the Coast-sponsored organization of regional teams of gamers around the world) whose central team ("Triad") has published articles such as COR2-11: Escape From Tenh, and others that involve this region in story elements that are now part of the Greyhawk canon. -Harmil 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please go ahead and do so. But if you move this material to another, make sure you add secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, otherwise the potential threat of deletion will not go away.--Gavin Collins 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your consistent use of language such as "opponent" (as I've noted on your talk page) and "threat" in discussing the AfD process and surrounding discussion makes me wonder what kind of goal you have here. -Harmil 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gavin, independent notability is required for the subject of the article, not each topic within it. If Grayhawk is notable, than a discussion in its article of something notable only within that context is acceptable. —Quasirandom 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On the contrary, every article must stand on its own feet when it comes to primary and secondary sources. This is not even an article: it is 2 sentences, neither of which are sourced. There is no evidence that this ficitional dukedom has any notability at all, even within the game setting. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodal

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celene (Greyhawk)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think that the establishment of notability for Greyhawk has already been accomplished indisputably. This article is arguably too small a satellite, though I think that could be argued either way. So, you could certainly make the case that it's not notable enough on its own and should be merged, but I don't agree that deleting material which is notable within its genre is reasonable. I know you don't agree with that, but there it is. I'll have to let other editors weigh in to resolve. -Harmil 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is just your opinion, which is not supported by any evidence; there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of Greyhawk, only a long list of primary sources orginating from the publishers. Celene has no real-world notability at all; as far as I know, its just a fictional location that is named on a map of gaming instructions. The primary sources do not indicate that this ficitonal location has any notability per se. -Gavin Collins 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my opinion. That's fact as supported by the sources in the article. We rely on primary sources to tell us about the notability of a subject within its own sphere of influence. What we do not rely on primary sources for is to tell us about the notability of the subject within a larger sphere of influence than the scope of the primary sources themselves. That is, we rely on the sources given here to indicate where Celene falls within the fictional universe of Greyhawk because the sources are authoritative within that scope. You continue to confuse primary sources with non-sources. They have their value. -Harmil 14:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% incorrect. Notability of a fictional concept cannot be established with in-universe information. Primary sources allow you to discuss the topic within another relevant article, but they do not justify a stand alone article. By using only primary sources the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Jay32183 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, ghits is "Google-hits", which apparently turns up mostly fansites when the term is searched for. BOZ 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I guess that makes sense, although I've never heard the word before. Rray 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (Shackled City)

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

Contested prod. Ghits from fansites don not provide real-world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons canon.--Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm tempted to say speedy keep on the basis of the truly incomprehensible AfD listing. What fan site? Paizo? Paizo is, in this context, a primary source, I'll grant, but they're the publisher (or were at the time) of the world's most subscribed roleplaying magazine, so I don't think "fan site" is appropriate. What's more, using insulting or derogatory terms in referring to the subjects of an article in the AfD listing is just bad form in the extreme. Gavin Collins's crusade against fantasy-related articles on Wikipedia is 'widely documented elsewhere, but this AfD will certainly become the touchstone of concerns about his edits. -Harmil 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note here... Gavin meant Google hits, of course (as he explained here), but since this makes at least twice that I've seen this same misunderstanding happen, maybe we should all try to write out Google hits or write it as G-hits or something. Pinball22 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about misunderstanding, though it was quite a confusing sentence. As others have stated, Cauldron was the central topic of 12 issues of one of the worlds two most popular gaming publications (the most popular, if you're only talking about roleplaying games). The problem (as I noted at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) is that the idea that notability is not inherited breaks down when a topic such as Arrakis is the central setting of an otherwise notable work of fiction. Is the central setting notable? I think that it does inherit that notability (where, for example, the dragon that appeared in issue 11 of the Shackled City series would not, because it's a minor feature of the notable story). Shackled City was the first of a line of 3 adventure paths that each spanned a year of Dungeon (12 issues) and was widely written about within the gaming industry (see the Shackled City article). That's all about Cauldron and the story-line that took it from obscure outpost in the Greyhawk lore to the exploded and ruined center of a major plotline. -Harmil 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnd

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICTION, hasn't any reliable sources, just ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club

Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club. The 25 unique ghits do not verify the article. MER-C 09:55, 8 November 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. The statistics probably could meet WP:V in another appropriate article, so if such an article is found, undeletion and redirection might well be useful. But the actual topic of the article does not appear meet WP:V after a great deal of effort so deletion is required. (As to the relevance of other arguments: the WP:NEO argument is correct and significant for deletion; the "too many contributions" argument actually counts in favor of deletion if there has been a lot of effort without finding good sources; the "it's useful" argument is weak for keeping but strong for redirecting and merging after a suitable topic is identified; and lack of independent reliable sources about the topic (notability) is also a significant arguement for deletion.) GRBerry 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four pageants

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

This article is relatively useful and has involved a lot of work, but I still can't get across the No OR & Verifiability principles in relation to this article so finally decided to bring it to afd. I can't say I'm strongly in favour of deletion, but it just doesn't seem to meet general inclusion criteria. Keep in mind that the term itself was created by a fan site. There are a fair few google hits but most of them are mirrors and rubbish [1]. The Google News Archive has nothing on the topic [2]. I'm interested in seeing what others think, but at the moment I'm favouring deletion. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's been way too many contributions to delete it now. It is also very informative. -- Lancini87 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The major flaw of the article might be the lack of citation or notes (i.e. verifiability). But this could be worked out since majority of the article is made up of statistics. The main challenge here is the fact that the article, by nature, is a collection of different information and data, hence, when you google it, you might just find a page that bears just one element of Big Four pageants, if not just a mirror site. Being a term coined by a pageant site is not enough reason to delete this article. One might be surprised as to how some mundane words which we have gradually considered as formal ones came from slang terms and other word corruptions.Joey80 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lancini's arguments are that people put effort into it and that it's useful, neither of which are substantive arguments. Joey's argument notes that the article has serious verifiability issues. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that identify these pageants as being significant as a unit, which sourcing problems you acknowledge. What is the basis then for keeping this article? Otto4711 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Niether of the sites linked to as sources use the phrase "Big Four" or define what the "grand slam" is. Unless the term is picked up and used by notable sources and becomes widely excepted, it is not material for wikipedia. Pastordavid 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in The O.C.

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

Listcruft meets fancruft. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics; neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. A previous AfD in May delivered many keep !votes for "social importance" and that "music plays in important part in television", however it isn't clear to me how either of those reasons justify a 60KB list of song names. •97198 talk 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can I add that Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix 3, Mix 4, Mix 5 and Mix 6 already exist. •97198 talk 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telchuria

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

Fails WP:FICT. Gavin Collins 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge This region is not significant enough within the Greyhawk published materials for its own Wikipedia article. It should be a redirect, but beyond that any content should appear on an article about the geography of Oerth. -Harmil 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Lynn

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

An model/actress, who appears to be not notable. The article has been deleted four times already[3] (though, it would appear, not with the present contents of the article the first two times around) and I'm bringing it here for consensus on deletion and salting. Thanks. Malcolmxl5 09:08, 8 November 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 wasdelete as an unsourced neologism, probably made up in school one day. Bearian 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.a

P.s.a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, probably non-notable. Contested PROD. Computerjoe's talk 08:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I've added the AFD template. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica mann

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

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars

Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This SNL skit is not the sort of ground-breaking comedy that might deserve an article, such as the Coneheads or even Stuart Smalley. According to the article they only appeared in two episodes. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:40, 8 November 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 this and the album articles. GRBerry 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esimple

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

Non notable band. Google (Esimple + Costa Rica) only shows about 800 hits, many being myspace or youtube related. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories

Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I mean no offense to the person who has made this his mission, but the article is totally unnecessary and fails to satisfy several policies and guidelines. (Like WP:RS or WP:V for example.)
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 has a section discussing the theories which gained press attention, revolving around whether the plane was on a spy mission or a legitimate passenger flight. Anynobody 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A slightly expanded entry in the main article is probably a better approach than this page.Alberon 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, expand section in parent article a bit and redirect this one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By their very definition conspiracy theories generally can't be supported by reliable sources. --Nick Dowling 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual utter bilge. Is there any event in the last hundred years which wasn't actually ochestrated by an evil cabal of aliens, jewish bankers and baby eating neoconservatives? Nick mallory 11:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I orginally split this off the main article because it was so extensive that it overwhelmed the rest of the content. I had the naive hopes that the daugther article would be clean-upable, but sadly that hasn't happened, and it has become a POV magnet for a particular individual who runs a website that advocates that the plane didn't crash and that the passengers are still being held in the gulag. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a mess! --John 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Agreed. As a followup to Akradecki's comment, the split off helped reduce the KAL 007 article to almost half of its former size (41,018 to 20,917), and did . When half of an encylopedic article is facts and half is speculation about conspiracies, a split like that's an excellent move. I think that it's better to have a septic tank to hold stuff you don't want stinking up the place, especially since the KAL 007 article was being ruined. However, even a septic tank has to be cleaned. The solution may be to pare down this article so that there can still be a section of the parent article that says, in effect, "Don't put that crap here". Mandsford 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has been parred down, the only WP:RS I've found about conspiracy theories and KAL 007 are in the main article already. What's left isn't enough to justify a spin off, which is why that's up for deletion. Anynobody 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroupSwim

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

Delete promotional sounding article about nn company, who is just in beta phase of its product - been deleted as speedy twice before but let's see what the community says; blurbs in on-line magazines that review tech companies and products, are they paid to do these? dunno, but not the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to show WP:N per WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thepeapodfamily

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

Doesn't fit any CSD, so here it is. Non-notable book, whose article is unverifiable - nothing on google. MER-C 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franklin Company

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

Delete unsourced article by User:RFCO (a WP:SPA with WP:COI?) about a nn company that publishes a football poll - it does not contribute to the BCS standings, so just a guy's poll on his website, that has ads to loan you money. Carlossuarez46 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poll is not one of the two human or six computer polls used in calculating the composite Bowl Championship Series ranking (see [5]) and is thus likely entirely non-notable. The only non-BCS poll that is notable is the AP poll. This is a non-notable company that publishes a non-notable poll. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:33, 8 November 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit

Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band seems to lack notability. No chart history of the band is present, fails WP:MUSIC, and founder of the band lacks notability as well. Admc2006 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band members because they also fail notability and the album page lacks a track listing:

Bruce Hampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimmy Herring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oteil Burbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In a Perfect World (Aquarium Rescue Unit album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

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

The result was speedy close, redirects should be taken to WP:RFD. There is no article to discuss deleting. Recommend leaving in place as Someguy0830 has pointed out. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop

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

There is no need for the Kpop article since it is a duplicate of the KPOP disambiguation article (note case). There isn't even a need for a redirect article since redirection would be automatic when only the case differs. I am proposing a deletion rather than a merger since a merger requires leaving behind a redirect. WinTakeAll 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Macpherson

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

Delete also-ran on Canadian idol and has little else on which to pin notability Carlossuarez46 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criterion actually requires the musician to be the subject of the multiple non-trivial published works. If the musician is mentioned in an article whose main subject is really a TV show or another musician, then I don't think it meets the threshhold. If the work is titled something like, "Keith performs, does great on Canadian Idol show!" then this is very different from "Keith performs, impresses millions!" One is probably about the show, the other unequivocally about the performance. (Note: I was only able to pull up one of those three Google News articles; it was a local newspaper article strictly about local musicians playing in local venues - not meeting the threshold.) I think this guy falls below the threshold in general; delete. Deltopia 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not yet reflect it, but there is notability being established separate from Canadian Idol, as Macpherson gains media attention as part of the duo Keith and Renée. Example 1 Example 2 We could argue whether this belongs in a different article altogether, Keith and Renée, but I think it would be reasonable to incorporate information both about the duo and about Macpherson's Idol-related attention into the article Keith Macpherson. --Paul Erik 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. Since this is a complex merge and I know little of this topic, I am just going to add merge tags. W.marsh 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld languages

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely plot information from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. I created this article to reorganise a lot of random information in the Discworld Wikipedia domain. Much of it was taken from other articles, and if it is to be deleted then that information should go back where it came from (Dwarf and Troll languages should go back to Dwarf (Discworld) and Troll (Discworld). Ook language (which this article was originally) should probably be merged with Librarian (Discworld). Not sure what to do about Latatian. Serendipodous 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that! I was looking at Discworld (world) when I said that and then linked the wrong one. Pinball22 21:40, 8 November 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.

Granny Weatherwax

The result was keep - Rudget Contributions 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely a plot summary from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:52, 8 November 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Result endorsed. Good call, user should think about adminship. Hiding Talk 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rincewind

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely a plot summary from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Collins, please assume good faith, and refrain from making baseless accusations of plagiarism. -Harmil 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No such accusation was made, nor any accusation of copyvio or original research. I think it is perfectly alright to transcribe material from other sources, like Discworld & Pratchett wiki, particularly if there are citations showingtheir sources. My gripe with this article is that there are no footnotes to trace back to the orgininal source. --Gavin Collins 13:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that you are correct or incorrect, it is that you are assuming and making accusations of bulk copying without any evidence. This is inappropriate. -Harmil 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Discworld concepts

Minor Discworld concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These concepts lack real world notability and are not cited in reliable secondary sources (WP:FICT). Additionally, they lack a real world context and are solely a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob 05:48, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 11:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fist of the North Star characters

List of Fist of the North Star characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanto Seiken

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

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:43, 8 November 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 or merge. Editorial decision at this point. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokuto Shinken

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

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hokuto Shinken is a central fighting style in the series. Not only that, it has been parodied in numerous Japanese fiction (such as Urusei Yatsura and Great Teacher Onizuka to name a couple), so it has some notability. Just because the series is not well known to English speaking anime and manga fans doesn't mean the series is not notable in Japan. While I agree the article needs some cleanup, an AFD is not a solution. Jonny2x4 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources, fails WP:NOT#PLOT due to being a long plot summary with no real world context Pilotbob 05:40, 8 November 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 to delete --JForget 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors

List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOT. most have their own article, as does BloggingHeads.tv. Hu12 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:33, 14 November 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. Coverage by the tabloids doesn't cut it, and BIG WP:BLP issue. PeaceNT 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Basabe

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

Non notable individual ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. A person that become known because it "was photographed dancing with President Bush's daughter Barbara at a New York party" does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to note that the article is well sourced and the person is partially a credible person in my opinion, but I do have to take in account why (which is reflecting my vote). Dancing with the president's daughter isn't something that would be remembered 3, 5, 10 years down the line. That is why my vote is to delete it. BeanoJosh 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note In some venues it is not polite for a woman to refuse to dance when asked. So very little can be inferred from the fact that they danced together. Steve Dufour 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note It would have been rude of Miss Bush to say, "I don't want to dance with you because you are a notorious person." On the other hand, if she had been a bit quicker and said something like, "No thanks. I'm a bit tired and want to sit this one out.", there would be no article. Steve Dufour 20:55, 10 November 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 --JForget 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podesta Group

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

Non notable lobbying business. A Google search of the company name brings up less than 200 results. Article reads like an advertisement. William Graham talk 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be fair, the copy/paste portion I was talking about was a big list of clients that was edited down to 'selected clients'. Although it still seems pretty large and like an advert. I do agree that it seems like there seems to be some WP:COI going on. --William Graham talk 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Adding a list of clients to an article strikes me as not the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia article; we are not a Martindale-Hubbell style business directory. It also raises some WP:BLP-ish issues, if not falling within the scope of that policy exactly. Do these institutions want to publicize the fact that they hired a Washington lobbying firm? Assuming for the sake of argument that they gave this business to use their names in its promotional website, it doesn't necessarily cover Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list is the wrong format, so I cleaned it up. A lobbying firm's list of clients defines the firm - very different than a law office, where key clients are still important but less definitive of who they are. There's no privacy concern. A lobbyist's clients are by law public information, they're widely available, and anyone who cares about the subject knows where to find them. Plus as you note they're on the firm website. We defer to legitimate privacy concerns, not the spin that companies wish to have. But believe me, if any company felt that Podesta mentioning them as a client was the wrong kind of spin it would not be on the firm website. The abbreviated list of clients is also useful because it shows the notability of that firm. You don't get clients like that without being a high powered, important firm.Wikidemo 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if John Podesta is notable, isn't the Podesta Group, his main business, notable? John Podesta, as former chief of staff to President Clinton and founder of Center for American Progress, is certainly notable. Scarykitty 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Majoreditor 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Setting references aside for the moment it's clearly a significant lobbying firm and major player in Washington, with a long list of important clients. If we're going to have encyclopedic coverage of the subject of lobbying, this is a firm people need to know about. That is the definition of relevance. Sources prove relevance but they are not the same thing as relevance. Lobbying is a field where there are fewer articles written about notable subjects because lobbyists create the news and deliberately stay out of it, newspapers have considerable conflicts of interest and difficulty writing about lobbyists, and people are simply not that interested in reading news of the subject. However, this article does have major sources, certainly manyfold more than would be necessary for any general application of WP:CORP. Articles specifically about this group in New York Times, Wired, and Washington Post (X2), one of the fifty top lobbying firms in Washington? It makes one wonder why this afd is even here.Wikidemo 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be an article about the business, if its public activities can be documented in independent third party sources. We do have the article on John Podesta, which may be the best place to cover it for now, especially since his firm seems to be in a state of flux recently. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 15 November 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. --Tikiwont 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Queen

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

Non-notable drag queen SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:21, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 11:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting directories

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

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a directory Hu12 04:20, 8 November 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. This is the coverage of a brief event, not of any historical significance. No chance of substantial sources. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. PeaceNT 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot

2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Notability is not asserted in article or suggested by sources. —dustmite 04:17, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 10:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-caf Double Half Caf

De-caf Double Half Caf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional coffee from L.A. Story. It's a famous scene, but not so famous that we need an article about something that only existed in a line of dialogue. No merging is necessary as the quote is already in L.A. Story, and no redirect either, because this isn't the correct name, and isn't even close to the one quoted in the film. Masaruemoto 04:11, 8 November 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 since it is unclear which reliably sourced content could be merged. --Tikiwont 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic JROTC Staff

Olympic JROTC Staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is focused more on the people in the battalion than the actual battalion's history, operations, or reputation. Does not display enough notability to survive as its own article. This is better to merge this into the Olympic Community of Schools article, if there is one. Also, it needs wikifying because of NPOV and most likely COI issues with "The 2007-2008 Brigade Staff is said to be the best Olympic has ever seen..." Other JROTC Battalions around the nation just merge this type of information into their high school's main article. See Lowell High School (San Francisco)'s JROTC section (This battalion is one of the best in the brigade as well). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as it results clearly from the debate that there is not yet enough independent reliable coverage to write an encyclopedic article. --Tikiwont 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Ring Theory

Quantum Ring Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" NeilN 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work. Getting rid of the OR and adding more sources mainly. Other than that, there area few print sources to back it up, and it seems notable in the realm of physics. - Rjd0060 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER BY W.GUGLINSKI:

NeilN said:
Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

However basically NeilN is wrong, because:

1- In the case of Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion, the article shows a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among those ones that think cold fusion occurrence be theoretically impossible. The belief is wrong because the electron's zitterbewegung makes the cold fusion occurrence be possible theoretically. So, the article shows a FACT

2- In the case of Quantum Ring Theory, the article supplies Wikipedia with an information about a new theory that is reading by people worldwide.

  • There are teachers of Physics encouraging the students to read Quantum Ring Theory, as we see in the link:
    • Need help: quantum ring theory
    • Was told to read up on it by my professor , but then wikipedia no entry . anyone got any useful link ?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:AbHrgF4t9SwJ:forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D104358+%22quantum+ring+theory%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=34&gl=br

      • The book is beeing read by students, physicists, reviewers, in the whole world, and this is a FACT.

Look:

Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski- [ Traduzir esta página ]Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski. www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948 - 166k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Barnes & Noble.com Books: Quantum Ring Theory, by Wladimir ...- Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion, Guglinski, Wladimir Guglinski, Paperback, Book, ISBN: 0972134948, Barnes & Noble.com. search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780972134941 - 35k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory gifts in india at rediff books - [ Traduzir esta página ]Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory at rediff books. books.rediff.com/bookshop/buyersearch.jsp?lookfor=Wladimir%20Guglinski&search=1 - 13k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Buy.com Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : ISBN ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : ISBN 9780972134941 : Book. www.buy.com/prod/quantum-ring-theory/q/loc/106/203008754.html - 86k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Get Published Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion - In Quantum Ring Theory Wladimir Guglinski presents a radical new theory concerning the fundamental nature ... www.published.com/search/results.aspx?search=Jon - 40k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BiggerBooks.com Discount Bookstore. Bestsellers, New Books, Used ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory. Author(s): GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR. ISBN: 0972134948. ISBN13: 9780972134941. Cover: Paperback. Copyright: 08/30/2006 ... www.biggerbooks.com/book/0972134948 - 49k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

››› buch.de - bücher - versandkostenfrei - Quantum Ring Theory ...Quantum Ring Theory - Wladimir Guglinski Titel voraussichtlich versandfertig innerhalb 3 Wochen. EUR 26,99. www.buch.de/buch/14091/686_quantum_ring_theory.html - 25k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Amazon.fr Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir GuglinskiAmazon.fr : Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski. www.amazon.fr/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/toc/0972134948 - 56k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Quantum Ring Theory:GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR :0972134948:eCampus.com- [ Traduzir esta página ]Buy Quantum Ring Theory by GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR for $25.86 at eCampus.com[ISBN:0972134948]. Save 50 - 90% on new and used books. www.ecampus.com/book/0972134948 - 46k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BookFinder.com Book directory [e3bb2310]- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory by Wladimir Guglinski (0972134948 9780972134941 0-9721349-4-8) · Meeting the Enemy, Becoming a Friend ... www.bookfinder.com/dir/e3bb2310/ - 14k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

      • So, it seems that the users of Wikipedia are trying to suppress the FACT that the book is known by people of many country.
  • confuse people??? Said by Eugene Mallove: "Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas" That's why as editor of Infinite Energy he decided to publish my paper What is Missing in Les Case's Catalytic Fusion (Infinite Energy Vol. 8 , No. 46 , 2002).

Besides, the own Mallove who encouraged me to put my all papers in a book form. So, I suppose it was not confuse to him, that knew Physics very well. Perhaps it is confuse to people that do not understand Physics, however their opinion cannot be taken seriously. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • STRONG DELETE. Delete. No cites for Guglinski and very few cites for quantum ring theory on Google scholar, so whether or not this counts as original research (I lean towards not) it seems to be non-notable. And the spammy approach by Guglinski himself to this AfD isn't helping. —David Eppstein 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein: You're wrong, because http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=guglinski&hl=pt-BR&lr=&lr= cites Guglinski. W.GUGLINSKI 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Therefore we can change your vote, as follows:[reply]
    • David, the book QRT has been published in 2006. In order to appear new quotations on the book, the physicists need to read it, to study the proposals, and later to write about them in papers and new books. Such a process takes time. The changings in sience takes several years, mainly because my ideas propose very deep changings in the foundations of Physics. Besides, I wrote only one book. If I had written more books, there would be more quotations W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strengthening my !vote, and removing the "lean towards not" line from my previous comment, as Guglinski's comments including the one above admitting that the work is uncited) have convinced me that his work is original research that must be removed from Wikipedia. I would also like to register a protest about his extremely annoying behavior on this AfD: I refer to the many overlong and badly formatted comments and more particularly to his attempts to get people to change their !vote, formatted as if looking like !votes from the targets of his vote-change requests. I trust the closing admin to collate the opinions appropriately regardless of this obfuscation, but it is making it difficult to hold a true debate on the merits of this article, because nobody is given a chance to discuss the issue with anyone but Guglinski himself. —David Eppstein 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete The article isn't even about a quantum theory. It starts off with some statments that Schroedinger and Heisenberg made, and then goes on about how the author of the article had trouble getting his books published. Fails WP:OR. Bobby1011 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby,

The development of Physics along the 20th Century had two different currents: Schrödinger and Heisenberg had different opionions about how to develop Quantum Mechanics. So, I supposed to be important to explain to people here in the begginning of the Wikipage on Quantum Ring Theory what is the way adopted in QRT, because it is different of the way addopted currently in the development of Quantum Mechanics, since the Heisenberg's viewpoint prevailed (it's known as Interpretation of Copenhagen).

After that introduction, I told how the QRT was born, and why it was born (one of the reasons because I consider Schrödinger way could not be neglected by the theorists (QM could be developed by considering the two ways together). Perhaps it is difficult to you to understand some things, because you are not an expert in Physics. But those ones that know Physics very well are able to understand why I used this sort of description.

I hope you understand my point now W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) So, I ask you if you change your vote:[reply]

I'm not an expert on physics? How would you know? And should I suppose that you're claiming that you are an expert on physics? I'm a chemist by training and we do actually study a significant amount of quantum theory during the course of our studies, though I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the topic. The article and its proposed theory's deviations for the standard model have nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation does not concern itself with the "hard" theory directly, but is rather concerned with interpreting implications about the role of the observer from quantum mechanics. Handschuh-talk to me 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]






  • Delete Hopeless and unsalvagable.Alberon 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUBJECTIVE: It is only an personal opinion, not based on any objective criterion. Therefore cannot be considered seriously W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is based on objective criteria. The article is unsourced (except to itself), and the article is biased reading much like and advert for the theory in question. I seriously doubt these problems can be overcome so I cannot see much chance of this article being kept.
  • Delete When will people learn that this is an encyclopedia, not a site to tell your life story? Mr_pand 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
  • 'IT'S NOT LIFE STORY - It's the history of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY: how it born, why, what were the troubles, etc. It is very different than a life personal story. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time I made that comment, the article was written in the first person, and was basically about difficulties in getting the book published. It read very much like a life story. Now, that is not so much the case, although it still doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like an essay. Also, we need third-party citations. Mr_pand 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • third-party citations: Already alleged by David Eppstein. Mr-Pand, please dont repeat arguments already posted by other members. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration 200.149.61.187 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please allow an admin to judge which views to take into consideration. Mr_pand 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I allow it, but I suppose that the admin will agree that the users cannot repeat several times an argument earlier already quoted by another user. W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a user feels another user's reasons for keeping/deleting are valid they are free to restate the reasons. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. No results for "Quantum Ring Theory" in most of the usual places including Web of Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect. Some results in other databases, but adding "Guglinski" to the search narrows that down to nothing. Article is surely original research? --Kateshortforbob 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • USUAL PLACES ??? If you try to find Eugene Mallove in those usual places as Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect, etc., you will find NOTHING. However Mallove is the best known name among the cold fusion researchers. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • The fact that someone else shares my opinion does not mean that my opinion is invalid. It is not up to you to decide which comments should be taken into consideration. Please consider David Eppstein's comments above - your aggressive approach to this AfD is not helping your case. Hut 8.5 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • Delete as nonsensical personal essay. JJL 18:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NONSENSICAL ???? Only for those ones that dont know Physics. However we cannot take seriously their opinion.

Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]






Comment: Hey, how do you know I don't know Physics? Please review WP:AGF. And yes, I maintain what I said. Please review WP:OR and WP:HOAX. Turgidson 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • Keep -- the English may be a bit off, but I do agree with the original writer, they discussing facts in terms of what has been published. Therefore, it meets the basic criteria of a entry. Just because some members of the physics community disagree with some of the ideas is NOT reason enough to delete the entry.Flashgordon123 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK:
Flash,
Would you like to improve my bad English ? I would be glad if you do it. Also, feel yourself free to make corrections in the grammar and syntax of Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories Thanks very much W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]





  • Keep It may not be widely accepted and the English is a bit off but it represents a possibility. It should be heavily rewritten to show that it is not all accepted fact. Harland1 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Someguy: "Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of verifiable information"
Hi, Someguy,
Everything can be verifiable in the book Quantum Ring Theory
But if you wish, or somebody of the Wiki admin, you can talk with Naveen Dankal ( dankal.naveen@gmail.com ). He is the Indian theorists that posted in the Barnes & Nobel that review on the book QRT.
As my English is very poor, now he is improving the text of my book MODERN PHYSICS TO WHOEVER DOESNT KNOW PHYSICS, written to layman to understand the foundations proposed in QRT.
Unfortunatelly Eugene Mallove is dead, because he could give additional informations.
The review by Naveen Dankal:
WHOA!!...we have a breakthrough here!!! Hi I just came across this book 'Quantum Ring Theory' by Wladimir Guglinkski and found it quite exhilarating and thrilling. The thrill is in the way Quantum Theory is being treated in this book which is totally a new approach to physics. The proposed structure of the Neutron in terms of n=p+e, the ZOOM Effect, Helical trajectory, a completely new interpretation of DUALITY are some of the most original works of the author. I don't think I have seen any of the Modern Physicists as original as Wladimir. I must say that any serious physicist must go through this book and I would be glad if some of the universities come out with funds to perform certain experiments to establish Guglinski's Quantum Ring Theory. WLADIMIR.......HATS OFF MAN!!!!!!
Concerning the question of fundamental requirement for cold fusion, mentioned in Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories, the question that the cold fusion theorists are unable to respond was arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch, in his Chemistry Forum. So, you could talk with him, in http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Earlier to know Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch was sure that cold fusion is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE. Now, after getting knowledge that cold fusion can be explained from the zitterbewegung as shown in Cold fusion theories, it seems that Mitch changed his mind. W.GUGLINSKI 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The book itself is no use, obviously, as you wrote it. What we're asking for is independent sources on the web that support your argument. As it stands the article, like the newer one you've put up Don Borghi's experiment reads more like a piece of WP:OR as mentioned above. Even if those articles are kept in the end, they're going to have to be rewritten to remove the bias and present both sides of the argument.Alberon 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment I work at a university and that is not how most scientists operate. If a theory that radically changes the view of the universe appears true they run with it. This would make the careers of anyone who verified the theory. Peer Review actually works very well and there isn't some grand conspiracy to ignore your theory. Just look at the 20th Century where virtually every model of the universe was systematically overturned as new observations came in. Your theory is non-notable and does not deserve a page (or pages) on Wikipedia. Alberon 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by JzG. With edit summary that makes us look very unprofessional. W.marsh 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crapware

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and WP:NOR. Captain panda 04:00, 8 November 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 - high on cute but low on notability. I shall make the content available to anyone who want to merge in any notable creatures. TerriersFan 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rabbids

List, completely unnotable Knowitall 03:39, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Turtle (bar)

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

Non-notable small group of bars.Masaruemoto 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Heimstern (G1). Non-admin closure. Deor 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Sacajawea Antartica

Huston Sacajawea Antartica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a hoax article. Dougie WII 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like an admin speedied it already -- Dougie WII 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fail2ban

Fail2ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod tag was in place for six months, notability tag for six months before that. This is a non-notable piece of software and nobody has ever stepped up to establish why it deserves an article or bring the stub up to even basic copyediting standards. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually the article had been deleted because of the PROD and I just restored it yesterday upon request. The diffs are these [22] [23] Unfortunately my comment in the edit history does not make that very clear. The request mentions one source (in German), but it is indeed unclear whether there is sufficient independent coverage. --Tikiwont 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I did some googling and the German article mentioned likely is this review from August in a magazine called "PC Professionell" [24] (google translation). There's also some other articles about it in google (e.g. [25] [26] [27]). So, it seems to be at least somewhat notable to me. -Allefant 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) This is a Secret account 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Somewhat notable, but does need some sourcing in the article. - Rjd0060 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, I am the one who initiated this article after I saw alternative tools listed within wikipedia (they are referenced from Fail2Ban page). At the moment, Fail2ban seems to be the only tool of such kind which is still being developed and maintained. How "noticable" fail2ban is? as noted above -- googling brings A LOT of references and the stories of success. The main author of Fail2ban from time to time treats me with the kind emails from the users expressing their gratitude (unfortunately I can't cite or reference those from the article). Nevertheless I added few more references to the Internet-published articles highlighting Fail2Ban, also I added a couple of citations. I hope it would be sufficient to keep the article within wikipedia and remove the "deletion" banner. Thanks everyone in advance! Yarikoptic 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of boxing rivalries

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

WP:NOR; subjective list because the criterion states it's a partial list of some famous boxing rivalries, so judging which rivalries are famous enough to be listed requires original research. If any boxing rivalries are notable enough to have an article created, they can be added to the existing Category:Boxing rivalries. Theoretically this list could include every pair of boxers in history who have had two or more fights. Masaruemoto 02:23, 8 November 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. Will be userfied if requested. PeaceNT 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Demerest

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

Delete unsourced one-line sub-stub for an actor in a red-link show; nn - no sources, is he alive or dead? when and where born? is this show notable? is this it? unless something can be found, delete Carlossuarez46 02:11, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Men From Tomorrow

The Comedy Men From Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short article on a comedy troupe, created by WP:SPA, with the only reference being (you guessed it) their website. 30-odd ghits, some live reviews but that's it. They play in indie venues instead of comedy clubs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep given Secret's proposal, which is an editorial decision that should be discussed on the article's talk page, and not a request for deletion. There are no arguments to delete. Coredesat 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball free agents 2007-2008

List of Major League Baseball free agents 2007-2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What does this article do? All it does is lists the free agents for this year, something that can easily be found in mlb.com, si.com, yahoo, and many other sites. Not encyclopedic, violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS Delete This is a Secret account 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid we'll run out of kilobytes? Having a lot of information is a good thing. --W.marsh 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Coates

Coat of Arms of Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This unsourced article that fails to assert notability (though falling under no CSD criterion) seems to have been created primarily so that a certain nonnotable Michael Joseph Coates can see his name in Wikipedia. For this reason I am also nominating the following article, created by the same SPA as a nonstandard sort of redirect:

Michael Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deor 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Esther12345 and User:GabriellaMacArthur1234 are clearly socks as well. They've made no edits except for the one here. Valentinian T / C 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, the similar Polish articles are only kept at all because these insignia were generally used not by one family (as is the case in W. Europe) but often by 20 families or more per insignia. The Polish arms were effectively the rallying insignia of military units, and functioned as such for centuries. This gives them more notability than mere family symbols. Valentinian T / C 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting debate concerning the subject of notability. Based on the definition of "notability" contained in Wikipedia, I would say that the subject could potentially be notable but the article needs further work to establish this. On that basis, I would suggest that the article be kept for now but it must be improved to establish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.41 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Grimes

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

Article from single-purpose account, orphaned since Sep 2006. Person who has worked as a musical act co-ordinator for a TV show, as well as a video editor and production staff. Article also asserts he was a member of Creed, though the Creed article doesn't mention him. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:46, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Clayton

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

Non-notable golf pro. Fails WP:BIO by any measurable criterea. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corning (Amtrak station)

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

I couldn't see anything in this article that makes this particular train station noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's part of what it would become if every bus station had its own article. Previously nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) - tag was removed by an article editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:41, 8 November 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. CitiCat ♫ 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jay Scrozzari

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

Short article tagged for notability since March 2007, created by himself, linking his band. Probably a candidate for speedy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films about Yugoslavia Revolution

Films about Yugoslavia Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an article about Yugoslavian Revolution films, but a mis-named article about Underground (film) (which was probably about the Yugoslavian Revolution). Even if this were a list of films about the Yugoslavian Revolution, it would still be too specific a topic to cover on its own. But as it stands, there's no use for it. Masaruemoto 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Merope (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7)...). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fashionably Laid

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

Short article on an Icelandic DJ who hosts an electro night. Tagged for notability since 1 March 2007. Article makes claims of coolness and awesome popularity without any supporting footnotes. Unknown if an Icelandic DJ can be notable - but an exact phrase match search only picked up 28 ghits, many from Wikipedia mirrors. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 8 November 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, V/RS. Daniel 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Recon Commando

Advanced Recon Commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no citations to reliable third-party sources, entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:


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

The result was Delete --JForget 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous lynchings

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

Useless "list" (only two names). Subjective title ("Famous"), and merging to Lynching in the United States wouldn't make sense because not all lynchings have happened in the United States. Masaruemoto 01:09, 8 November 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. Most of the pertinent information is already at Huddersfield_Town_F.C.#Supporter_culture, so no need for a merge. Neil ☎ 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Town F.C. - Supporter culture

Huddersfield Town F.C. - Supporter culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is already an Athletic Supporter culture section in the main article, this page should be deleted. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - who is outside the UK? Not me, and I still say delete, for the reasons I have stated. Let the "rich supporter culture" stay in the whole books, and leave Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a trivia magazine. And what's the size of the article got to do with it? We're not talking server bandwidth here. Ref (chew)(do) 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply looks to me as if this "rich culture" consists of naming six people who like the team and reproducing the lyrics to two songs sung at games. This just isn't a subject for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Six references about name-dropped celebrities and one about a song? How is that "better sourced" to any useful degree? Famous supporters belong in main club articles (see Sheffield United F.C. for instance). I repeat my opinion that it is basically blatant original research and does not warrant a separate article. Added to which, individual or collective (non-celebrity) supporters are non-notable when compared to individual players, managers, etc., and it is wrong to encourage this kind of self-importance. In the end, the players are the entertainment, not those who come to watch them. Ref (chew)(do) 20:25, 12 November 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. --Tikiwont 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comixtalk

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

This should not be a standalone article since it literally has no content. I think it should be deleted. But the information can also merge to webcomix Chris! ct 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't assert notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read the article, particularly the first sentence which states Comixtalk was the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics. You may not believe that makes the publication notable, but that is not the same as stating that it does not assert notability. It is helpful to the debate for people to make a reasoned argument stating their opinion. Please explain why you do not believe being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics" is a fact worthy of note. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1 or A7, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither apply, and I'm worried a user of such long standing would believe they do. The opening sentence both contextualises and makes a claim of importance. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) stricken per Dragonfiend, with my sincere apologies to Andrew.[reply]
      • If I'm reading the time stamps right, you're worried that such a long standing user can't see the context and claim of notability in an article that reads simply "Comixtalk is a website devoted to webcomix." --Dragonfiend 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad. Wasn't my first mistake, won't be my last. Keep. It's important to the field of webcomics. At worst, merge and redirect to Webcomics for the time being, but there is certainly no need to delete. There exists on Wikipedia far worse articles than this, and I know we don't count that as an argument, but more fool us. Our policies and guidelines don't dictate that we delete anything we don't have to, so let's not delete this when we have other options open to us. Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HANGON This article was started today as an outgrowth of a discussion at another AfD about a comic artist, where Comixtalk was being evaluated as a viable source. I'm not a comic person (maybe funny looking though), but I think this will bear out to be a notable topic, if we do some research. Why not hold on for a day or two and see what happens. Please! --Kevin Murray 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it used to be called Comixpedia. I haven't read them, but it turns up a few pages on google news.[28]. - Peregrine Fisher 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they are using the name comixpedia for the magazine and other uses. It is time consuming to research since my searches seem to yield mostly their site. I've asked for help from the comix project. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJD, no need to be "clever". "Yesterday" and "today" are relative to the time zones. Please assume good faith, we are all part of the same WP team, which you so recently joined. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are acting in bad faith by bringing up the fact that this user recently joining Wikipedia.Chris! ct 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chris you are entitled to express your opinion. But my opinion is that (A) his comment was snippy at best, and (B) people should get some experience at WP before evaluating other editor's work through AfD. Personally I think IP users should be blocked, and that there should be a waiting period after registration to learn the ropes before diving into decision making. Where else in the world do people walk in off the streets and jump into evaluating and administering policy. This is a topic for another area, but you expressed your opinion, now you have mine. --Kevin Murray 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe users should first have to demonstrate that they understand Wikipedia policies. I, who has only been a registered user for about 3 months, have demonstrated my understanding of WP policy in my 7,000+ edits in that short time. Since we are pointing out irrelevant things here, you have been here for over a year and have just over 8,000 edits which could' show a lack of "experience" and understanding/knowledge of policy. All in a matter of opinoin, of course. Now, this "discussion" should obviously not be taking place on an AfD page, however I felt the need to explain myself per the above comments. Any more comments about this should be directed to my talk page. - Rjd0060 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that a huge edit count demonstrates understanding, but it sure demonstrates a lot of energy and dedication to the project. We all make our contributions as we can and in different ways. I see you as a valuable exception to my experience with newer editors involved in policy etc. Still, I think that we all need to treat AfD as a bit less routine, and show some respect and compassion. Remember, that although there is a lot of annoying spam being created here, you are frequently passing judgment on other people's hard work, and a subject that could be important to them though silly to you. Best of luck and Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This namechange apparently only 2 months old, seems it was done to create a distinction between the new ownership wiki comixpedia.org, and the journalistic former comixpedia.com.[31] It is the latter that receives mention in RS such as Wired[32][33], Publishers Weekly[34], to El Pais[35], and I don't believe it is custom to scrutinize notability simply after a name change. MURGH disc. 11:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comixpedia/Comixtalk is a project from several notable webcomics artists, and is worth maintaining coverage on. Phil Sandifer 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? All I see so far are the briefest of "mentions" in articles on other topics. --Dragonfiend 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't write a neutral article based on press releases, which probably explains why this article has been full of ridiculous weaselly-worded PR about the "webcomics community" "screaming for a centralized hub" and "the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? --Dragonfiend 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • See above. Every encyclopedia article, whether this one or whatever merge target you might have in mind, ought to be based on reputable sources rather than non-neutral press releases. Does that answer your question? And again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic?--Dragonfiend 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See above, there are third party sources mentioned higher up. But you're still not entirely answering my question. Not every statement in an article has to be sourced to a 1000 page academic treatment. Do we improve Wikipedia by deleting this article, or by merging and/or redirecting it to a relevant target? Hiding Talk 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I wrote "significant," I meant something more than a single-sentence passing mention, not necessarily "a 1000 page academic treatment." If we don't have some significant coverage on this topic, then yes, I think we would likely be better off deleting this article then writing about it in an article on some other topic. I could be wrong, and am of course open to you explaining more clearly where and how you think this ought to be merged.--Dragonfiend 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just want to be clear that we're agreeing on the frames of the debate here. We've got a website here that has been mentioned in mainstream media, one of the columns was repackaged as a book, it has featured artists of note and articles within it have been cited by academic works, and this discussion is about what's the best way for an encyclopedia to cover this site. Your stance is that there should be no mention of the site across Wikipedia. Am I reading you right? Hiding Talk 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, since we all seem to agree that only passing mentions of this site are made in reputable sources, then I see no reason why passing mentions of this site can't be made on Wikipedia. For example, one can currently find many passing mentions of this site by typing "Comixpedia" into Wikipedia's search box and hitting the search button; the first few of those results I've looked at seem fine. What I don't want to see is this topic given undue weight compared to other such web sites and I don't want to see this site's ridiculous press release claims being put into other articles. --Dragonfiend 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Um, regarding undue weight, with which websites would you say this site is comparable? Hiding Talk 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We could probably compare it to other special interest online news site topics with far more significant coverage from reputable sources like BuzzFlash or Nick Nunziata. --Dragonfiend 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So we need to look at why afd is failing to apply guidance and policies with regards these articles then, don't we. It seems a lot of people are far too quick to delete. I can't quite think of how a list would work, but there needs to be some way we can merge pertinent information to parent articles and trun articles into redirects to leave our readers informed. Would you agree? Hiding Talk 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. If it can not be improved within a reasonable time, let's consider merging. --Kevin Murray 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears to be a valuable resource for the press (see also) and, while it was created with only a sentence it has bulked up since and it should be able to grow and prove notability. Give this a month or two and we'll see how it looks then - if it is still poor then it should be put up for deletion then. (Emperor 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Give the guy a chance! Maybe he had limited time online or had to check sources or had to go to work. Not everyone on the planet spends 25 hours a day on the web at Wikpedia. Even if he doesn't come back for a day or three, someone else can improve the article. Agree with above comments that it's notable enough to keep. I would like to see some mention of connection with Comixpedia, and why the redirect from such. CFLeon 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's also worth noting that one of the columns on Comixpedia, which became Comixtalk, was T Campbell's history of Webcomics, a column subsequently rewritten as a book.[36] This is enough to meet criterion 3 of WP:WEB: The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Hiding Talk 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article just started, so it's premature to delete. And it looks like it might be possible to find secondary sources that can be used. T. Campbell's publication should definitely be mention in this article, since it does represent website content that's been printed. Can anyone find sources that mention Comixpedia when discussing History of Webcomics? Buspar 07:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable. Deletion is premature. Article needs improvement, not elimination. Doczilla 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it is worth, this site's Editor in Chief has a piece on their front page called Should ComixTalk have a Wikipedia Entry? Deletion Debate Underway.... Again!. In it, they write that "Dragonfiend still has a thing for deleting it (I think s/he led the charge on deleting the original Comixpedia entry actually)." It's amazingly innacurate to be suggesting that I lead the charge on the previous deletion discussion when I was the absolute last person to join the discussion, but since I see that they are writing about me, including this fine piece where contributors call me a "rotten bitch," "unredeemable monster," "thought criminal," "Book burner," and "Enemy of human knowledge," then the closing admin needs to weigh my comments regarding the quality of sources for this topic vs. my own Conflict of interest. --Dragonfiend 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to see you receiving this abuse. I don't see any COI on your part. You've expressed legitimate concern with which I may disagree, but I agree with your right to express the opinion here. Please just regard the source and their misunderstanding of our processes. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification: Xavier himself did not use those terms to describe you, the people commenting on his article did. It's not the ComixTalk editorial board calling you those names, but its readers. Important difference. I do agree that your comments would clearly suffer from some bias as a result, just as any user wouldn't be neutral to a site whose users called him names. Buspar 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. So, no, they're not just "readers" or "users." As far as I can tell their Editor in Chief hasn't written anything calling me a "rotten bitch;" he just attributes things to me that I haven't done and provides a forum for his contributors to call me a "rotten bitch." --Dragonfiend 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check of the person who specifically called you a "rotten bitch" (Rob Balder) and he does not appear to be anything more than a blogger on ComixTalk (any member can blog on ComixTalk; contributors are those who write for the magazine portion). If you read further on in the thread, Xaiver did tell him to remain civil and that his language was out of line. ComixTalk is mainly aimed to webcomic creators, and because you have a strong negative reputation among many webcomic creators (Kris Straub, Josh Lesnick, Howard Taylor, etc.), you are unlikely to be discussed in a neutral fashion by ComixTalk's audience. This is similar to when Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears are discussed at various news sites - they attract negative commentary for their actions and even some reporters can't help sniping at them on their news shows. But that doesn't affect the quality of the other articles posted, just as a news maker making sarcastic remarks on Spears or Lohan makes them less of a journalist. (Inaccuracies in Xavier's initial post, on the other hand, do make him less of a journalist, but don't necessarily impact notability, just reliability.) Buspar 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. That person who specifically called me a "rotten bitch" is listed on http://comixtalk.com/magazine_contributors. Then again maybe you're right and they are so unreliable they can't even get ther own list of contributors correct. --Dragonfiend 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot about that list (his account doesn't list any actual contributions, which is why I thought he was just a blogger). Still, this goes back to my newscasters example with Britney Spears: just because a newscaster makes jokes at Britney's expense, they're still a reporter and the rest of the content on their program doesn't somehow become less informative. And in this case, it wasn't Balder who wrote the original post, so he wasn't acting as a contributor, just a reader - a reader whose actions Xerexes himself said was not within the proper civility guidelines of ComixTalk. You'd have a stronger argument for defamation if Balder had published an article in the magazine using those phrases, meaning the editors had taciturnly "endorsed" such language by allowing them to be printed. But there's clear evidence Xerexes doesn't see name-calling as something people should do on his site, even if he doesn't necessarily like the person being attacked. Buspar 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake regarding whether it was a Comixtalk contributor who called me a "rotten bitch" on Comixtalk. --Dragonfiend 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed: Xerexes himself has rebutted your comments. You can read ComixTalk's official response to you here. He clarifies that that bloggers and contributors aren't the same on ComixTalk and addresses the other points you raised. Buspar 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he just rebutted my comments when he pointed out how I "reference a thread that is a number of years old" when in fact I referenced a thread from March 4th, 2007. --Dragonfiend 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comixpedia or Comixtalk, whichever is most popular, is a project from several notable satire artists. So, worth keeping in my opinion, coverage of this sort of thing is important. Rudget zŋ 16:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article shows huge improvement since this CFD got started and is noticable within the context of webcomics if its claims of being the first true publication devoted to discussing webcomics can be verified. --Martin Wisse 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, though it certainly needs more meat on it. A section discussing the birth of T Campbell's book from that series of Comixpedia articles would be a big boon. Putting it up for deletion a day after creation defies logic; why have stub language that encourages users to add content if we prefer to delete articles quickly? Maybe we should change the stub template to read, "This comic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by purging it before anyone else notices."Ig8887 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "no content" argument in the nominator's argument is no longer true. The article asserts notability and has at least one major publication to prove it (History of Webcomics). 136.142.101.135 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — Caknuck 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lekh Tandon

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

unsourced blp with minimal context, no indication that he's notable or covered significantly in 3rd party reliable sources; if something cannot be found we should delete this. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tandon has directed a number of notable movies which Wikipedia articles; he also won a Filmfare Award, which is a big deal in India. I have rewritten the article into a better referenced, somewhat larger stub. --A. B. (talk) 07:28, 8 November 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. GRBerry 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Pavillion

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

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody forgot to add the AfD template, which I've done. - Rjd0060 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damned Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Members of state legislatures are notable - the jury is still out for mayors of cities with 97k people. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reichert

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

Delete another unsourced one-line blp of another mayor of Macon, Georgia Carlossuarez46 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The population of the city proper is just under 100,000. However, the urban area (pretty much the geographic area that uses "Macon, GA" as part of its mailing address) is just under 380,000 and the metro area is just under 480,000. (This is according to the WP article on Macon). The Census Bureau's American Community Survey in 2003 puts the "household population" at 325,000.[37]. LaMenta3 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, short and unsourced are surmountable problems and are not reasons for deletion. The question is not, "Is the article sourced?" But rather, "Could the article be sourced?" If the answer to the latter is 'yes,' then sourcing cannot be a reason for deletion. Article length is NEVER a reason for deletion. Further, Macon is a town that is significant both to Georgia and American history, and it has a significant impact on the southern economy. Population aside (I don't even know what it is these days, and it differs whether you count the suburbs outside of the city proper), that makes the town significant enough to have its past and present leaders be notable. LaMenta3 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of a reasonably significant city, former member of the Georgia Legislative Assembly, and a fair bit of media coverage (he won 96% of the mayoral vote, but in an election with a very small turnout). Hal peridol 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 07:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Town Mall

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

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Far too small of a mall to contain much verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:34, 8 November 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. --Tikiwont 10:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsacred Hearts

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC notability guideline; article cites few to no third-party sources; label (Serious Business Records) has been deemed non-notable. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abunaicon

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

A previous PROD was contested. There are no secondary sources mentioned to indicate notability. I haven't found any reliable sources on the subject via a Google search either. Martijn Hoekstra 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power2All (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Are there secondary sources about this convention available (per our Reliable Sources policy? --Goobergunch|? 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes, you can find information regarding AbunaiCon at AniWay, the official anime/manga magazine in Holland (the only one that is). See URL: www.aniway.nl as they promote themselfs also on AbunaiCon and AnimeCon. Heck, whole google is full with AbunaiCon source information. If you still think this is not good enough, you can even contact the Japanese Ambase in Holland, since we receive quiet some information from them. Happy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.94.150 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81.175.94.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local notability? The fact is, the article fails to demonstrate notability, whether it is or not (however I believe it is not). - Rjd0060 16:06, 8 November 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.

Aspartmene

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G1 - patent nonsense. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspecting a hoax, article! VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 07:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gakuen Sugar Star

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

First issue, fails WP:Crystal VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [The are related to previous]:

Haru Kotobakanata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nica Bianca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8&oldid=170096962"