Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 27

< November 26	November 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogg Aaron

Delete Article asserts notability, but unsourced, and unable to find independent evidence of the author or any of his works. Seems to be non-notable Mayalld (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Contribution log of main author suggests a possible COI. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this skates very thin ice over our speedy deletion policy, definite conflict-of-interest issues to boot. RFerreira 07:18, 2 December 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 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetcos

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Tetcos. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I could find no reliable secondary sources.[1][2] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:51, 3 December 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 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James M. McCanney

Mathematician and physicist of unknown notability. A Google search for <McCanney "dipole red shift"> suggests that his work is mostly discussed only in Internet forums and his own website. [3] The only cited references are self-written articles and a biography from his own site. Thus fails WP:BIO due to lack of multiple independent sources that mention him in detail. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Probably fails WP:BIO. 'Probably' because evidence for widespread media coverage over time could be hidden among the 9200 Google hits for "James McCanney". Amazon offers two self-published books of his, one of them with a decent sales rank, but it appears that that's not enough. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims in the article as to notability are unverifiable and not backed up by any citations. Google scholar gives 0 hits on [dipole-red-shift mccanney]. There is no mathematical problem that is known as "the Prime Number Problem". The website devoted to this exudes whackiness (one of the great unsolved mysteries of modern man; The Ancient Greeks ... did not know where they came from; After many decades of research ... the mysteries of the prime numbers have finally been solved and are presented in the book with 3 hour lecture DVD; The implications of the solution method are far reaching, having applications in scientific fields as diverse as Quantum Mechanics and Genetics). --Lambiam 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lambiam. --Crusio (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambiam. FWIW, ISI WoS lists 1 citation of his Astrophysics and Space Science article, and two for his The Moon and the Planets paper. He never passed WP:PROF in academia, and his more recent work fails WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, not backed up by citations in reliable sources. Also, what's the "Prime Number Problem"? Never heard of that, sounds like a hoax to me. Turgidson (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent some time reading in hopes of finding some claim as to what problem was solved, but only saw an ever-increasing crackpot index. Charitably, this is original research unfit for Wikipedia; less charitably, it's a probably a scam. It's just possible that his physics is good, but his math is worse than wrong: it's gibberish. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:34, 30 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. — Scientizzle 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Scudder

Article fails to establish WP:N as either a DJ or a musician. Torc2 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC--Sethacus (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, for the love of God, delete this crap. Never wanted it here, and it's just become a flame farm. Good riddance. -- Mark Scudder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.185.163 (talk) 05:34, 28 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 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Engber

Stx16gn and 66.162.225.68 made a number of edits to this article, gushing about Ms. Engber. Ordinarily, I would just remove those statements to make the article more balanced, but as it is, the article doesn't seem to make a good case for notability. Many significant assertions go unsourced, and the few sources that are provided are unconvincing. For instance, a "Donor Honor Roll" is provided as evidence that she is "on a plateau of feminist writers and teachers". (Disclosure: She was my high school English teacher, but this deletion nomination has nothing to do with that.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources to establish any form of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, as stated -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. As the nomination states, assertions are not supported by sources. The claim that the subject "is one of the premiere teachers on African and South American literature" is supported by a NWSA Journal article penned by Engber herself. The assertion that she was "a promoter of the internet back when there were apprehensions" - in the late 90s! - is supported by a single, short piece Engber published in a July 1998 edition of The Cincinnati Post. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to fail WP:BIO and evidence suggests but does not confirm that Mrs. Engber may have made the article herself. Beaucage.Peter (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Victoriagirl. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the one published article in NWSA Journal is not enough for notability. DGG (talk) 06:09, 28 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. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leban Mohamed Nour

Appears to be a hoax Captain Smartass (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without reliable sources to verify any of this, I don't know that it is true. Nice decorations in the article, Captain. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a 13 year old killed 350 U.S. soldiers in 2006 in Somalia? I did miss a newspaper or two, but .... smells hoax-y. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most certainly a hoax.--Sethacus (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or wild propaganda. The U.S. loses 350 soldiers and nobody in the reputable press noticed? Reliable sources do report aircraft downings in Somalia, and they are reporting nowhere near 56 shoot-downs. • Gene93k (talk) 07:13, 27 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 as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Steven Blacklock

Most likely a hoax "...performed open heart surgery at age 5..." VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most likely? Well, at least you are AGF, but it is an apparent hoax. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious nonsense. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flatline. Although I'm sure his tiny fingers make stitching the aorta a breeze, it takes more than that to be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 27 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. — Scientizzle 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Levasseur

Unfortunately, while his band affiliation appears to be somewhat notable, he himself for his music and guitar work don't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. When checking, I see on one search, and another search that he doesn't seem to meet our needs for independent coverage. That is a Google news archive search; and note the many duplicate articles. Recommend delete for now. • Lawrence Cohen 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really enough about him on his own to make him notable outside of the band. Merge any useful information back to Cryptopsy and redirect. (We did something similar with Sonny Moore of From First to Last a while back.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 20 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, Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: As mentioned above. No need for a separate article, since person is not notable outside of the show. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect with Possibilities. Until we get more information on this guy, the content of this page should be on the main Cryptopsy article. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:33, 29 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 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Leadership Seminar

Non-notable seminar. Zero sources satisfying WP:RS attached ot the article. A quick google search [4] yields nothing notable. meshach (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable, and a Google news search doesn't help either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using interactive activities and interaction with other young leaders, NLS works to create a fun and relaxed learning environment. NLS's curriculum focuses on strengths-based leadership, civic responsibility, and peer interaction. If young people in Nebraska are learning to write prose like this, it seems wise to flee the state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete hopelessly non-notable. Might be speediable as an A7, but since it's technically about an event rather than a club, that might be pushing things. Definitely a delete though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 27 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 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wainwright Jeffers

Was tagged for speedy for no assertion of notability. I don't think it quite meets that criteria, but there are clearly notability questions as well as the article being autobiographical CitiCat^♫ 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. Only needs the brief mention in Brunswick News Channel (~~I'll be moving Bwk news channel to there once the redirect is deleted~~ Done.). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. Victuallers (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a hint, when posting press releases to wikipedia, the use of first person pronouns is a dead giveaway. Non-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable reporter. Has a mention in Brunswick News Channel, which - according to it's article - is "a TV station on the Web". Even the station is a NN? Greswik (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·^talk 01:03, 30 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 Supressão (For the Portuguese authorities ;) per WP:SNOW— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs)

Turing, Kenneth Alan

No evidence this person exists, just a rambling conspiracy theory. Dougie WII (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Putting aside the huge amounts of MOS work that needs to be done, including moving the page to correct the title, I say delete per the nom's reason. Long, rambling "article", which doesn't provide any real encyclopedic context. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor Kenneth. Not only is he fighting to prove that he's the secret grandson of a top scientist, his Wikipedia biography is a strange little article with lots of footnotes which don't actually mention the secret grandson of Alan Turing. At least he's getting help from the Portugese authorities. Not just a hoax, but a bad pulp fiction imitation hoax. Mandsford (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Sadly, this is not sufficiently similar to the deleted version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Alan Turing to apply speedy deletion criterion G4 — it is far longer and ramblier — but that only makes it more delete-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using shredder and burn bag. This information is still eyes-only and disclosure on Wikipedia is a serious breach of all applicable regulations. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the subject is actually notable, the structure and the style need to be ripped out and started over .... minimum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete a fascinating romp through the lexicon of conspiracy theory buzz-word bingo sheets, aimed more at the heart than the head. Earns special mention for name-dropping Project MKULTRA more times than I could keep track of (I was distracted by founting the fnords). Delete as WP:OR & failing WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:45, 27 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 as copyvio and redirect to Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2#Yu Yevon. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeven

Information already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Yevon#Yu_Yevon Oopsadoodle (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen copyvio material on Wikipedia before, but never before have I seen the original copyright notice actually left on! Anywho, this should be an easy redirect; I'd do it myself but I'll wait for others first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 27 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 based on improvements and something of a nomination withdrawl. — Scientizzle 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Mall (Florida)

Non-notable former mall in Florida, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable (former) mall. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To its credit, the article has a reliable source, but it lacks any compelling claim as to why it was important or memorable.-- danntm ^T _C 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 RS added - Alive/Dead is a non-issue. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, the sourcing suffices to meet WP:V in my mind. RFerreira 07:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources are a decent enough start; I'd withdraw if not for the two delete votes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:12, 2 December 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 the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Caldwell (programmer)

Strong delete This article on a programmer which is, on closer look, a blatant autobiography by the subject. Most of the information is admitted to be "from the subject" and hence unverifiable. And as I detailed on the talk page:

I am afraid I just do not see any notability (according to our guideline) here. This article comes the closest to such an assertion, but from this article we know only that Caldwell is the CTO of a (former) tech company.

Searching Google for keywords relating to this person's various claims to notability yield sorry results:

<Caldwell "Net Daemons"> [5] or <Caldwell NetDaemons> [6] yields a few articles, a directory of names, and SEC filings, but nothing that is substantially about the man himself.
<Caldwell "Monster Board"> [7] No related results except [8] which focuses more on NetDaemons than on Caldwell.
A Factiva search for <Caldwell DNS> (which would turn up articles written by/for the Associated Press) yields lots of hits for "Idaho weekly wheat/barley cash market snapshot", but again, nothing on the subject of this article.

Although this person has written articles that appeared in at least one major magazine [9], the threshold of notability is that there are multiple reliable and independent sources that write about the subject in detail. The subject of this article, on closer inspection, falls well short of this threshold. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree that he appears to fail WP:BIO for want of non-trivial mentions. The article based on press releases and self-published sources does not come up to the mark. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this entry to tie other entries together. I have already spent way too much of my time trying to augment and defend it - and frankly, the more discussion there is, the more embarassed I am to have had anything to do with it. Whether the information is notable or defendable is no longer the issue. The discussion has far far far surpassed any value of connecting other entries. That Wikipedia implies that the editor of the Weekly Standard wrote computer code is just not worth clearing up.ChristopherCaldwell 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Assuming the assertions are accurate, I see notability. The article needs a great deal of work, but definite potential is visible in its current state. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Maybe later an article could be built but this isn't it. meshach (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A guy with a job; falls far short of WP:BIO. No non-trivial secondary sources; article reads like a (poor) resume, not an encyclopedia article. —Cryptic 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May have had many important experiences such as programming an early version of Monster.com, but these have not entered the historical record. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the links, I'm still not convinced of the notability of the subject. Sources are needed about the subject, not just mentioning the subject or written by the subject. Unrelated, but User should note WP:AUTO. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Rjd0060, there is far too much potential here to simply throw the article away.SuperHappyFunCheese (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC) — SuperHappyFunCheese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete copyrights cost $20 bucks and a stamp, not meaningful - the first to write such and such type of program is pure OR - Xerox/Park seemed to have lots of things before anyone ever heard of them but not everyone who worked there is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO. I don't see any notable things coming from autobiography articles in Wikipedia. Let others write about him, not himself. Wikipedia is not a self-promotional vehicle. Dekisugi (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AUTO does not say autobiographies should be deleted, just that they should be strongly discouraged. If you wish to change the guideline to such a radical extent, propose it there or at the VP.DGG (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, but for confirmation of notability and cleanup. There are some weak claims of notability that, if confirmed and cited, appears to make this person notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree wholeheartedly that WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, just better policing of the article. RFerreira 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Auto Shmauto, if the core claim to notability is unverifiable, we can't have an article on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 11:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Although it has been said elsewhere that copyright registration numbers aren't really proof of anything other than someone's ability to pay $20.00,I have at least found the modern registration numbers to find them in government records: TXu000035863 TXu000035864 and TXu000035865. Just select "Registration number" and then enter the number you want to look up. I was unable to create a URL that takes you directly to the articles because the site has a concept of a session (which times out). Alas we're probably not going to find any published material on these games other than various UNH articles banning them - a dubious achievement. We do have source code and documentation, but no publication. ChristopherCaldwell 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Xihr 02:46, 3 December 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 per Pearrari's suggestion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symitar

Non-notable. An orphaned article who's parent company doesn't have an article of their own. -- Latin American X-Change 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news search brings back a number of relevant results, from reliable sources. Some of the results' headlines imply that the articles are specifically about the company, thus, appearing to meet notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge under Jack Henry Is the idea of wikipedia to be a buyer's guide of all companies, divisions of companies, and their products? This is a division of Jack Henry. This article looks like an ad for the company's products to me. Today, even one-person companies can generate multiple hits on google by issuing press releases and doing basic advertising. No company would care to be considered non-notable. Search for cutek, a tiny consulting firm about 3 years old. Any company that employs people and generates a profit is notable to someone... but I wonder where the line gets drawn. If I add a division of another company, or even another division of Jack Henry, written in the same fashion, I wager it will be tagged for rapid deletion right away as simply an ad. That's what I see here, too. The company USED to be independent. But now I don't see a reason to list them separately from Jack Henry. Symitar is not listed in the Software 500. Jack Henry is #78. I think this one goes away and we add one for Jack Henry, similar to the articles for Fiserv and Metavante in the same industry... listing Symitar as one of their divisions. Isn't this the proper approach so we don't have 100+ little Fiserv division ads in the mix?--Pearrari (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further opinion, I'm willing to make an effort at building a Jack Henry page and loading Symitar (and other division info) into it. Is that a constructive next step? --Pearrari 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 December 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. Neil ☎ 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama places

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree totally with nom. NN, Cruft and just duplicated from the episode articles. Spawn Man (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above. CRUFT, already mentioned in various articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as an arbitrary & indiscriminate collection of 87 in-universe factoids, each one without any encyclopedic treatment. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an excellent summary from multiple episode articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no out-of-universe purpose; simply fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list, about items of questionable import, even for this Futurama fan.-- danntm ^T _C 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, but delete. Perhaps an article under this title could exist, but this isn't it. Needs to focus on highly notable places to the plot of the series, rather than merely every place. - Chardish (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancrufty listcruft. RMHED (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:FICT, this is clearly a sub-article whose contents would make the main Futurama article too long and stylistically awkward. It should be judged as piece of the main article, not separately, meaning primary sources are sufficient. Torc2 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are evaluated on their own, not as a part of any other article, so this one has to establish its own notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, individual topics just have to satisfy WP:N on their own, but the article does not have to be judged absolutely independently of the main article. WP:FICT: "In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article." Torc2 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT also says this; "Avoid creating new articles on fictional topics that lack substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information". This article has not done this and needs to to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a distinction between "creating" an article and spinning it off from a parent article. The sources would be the episodes themselves; granted these are primary sources and not secondary sources, but as the article should be considered a sub-article of Futurama, the sources there should be sufficient to establish notability. "Preferably" doesn't imply an absolute requirement, and a guideline such as WP:FICT must be somewhat flexible if it hopes to apply to every possible topic. Torc2 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still ignoring the part where it says that the article must prove its notability through substantial rewl world information, and this has demonstrated done. It must do that in order to not be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the notability is partially inherited from the main Futurama article and doesn't need to be reestablished here as completely as a stand-alone article would. This is essentially part of the Futurama article that has been broken off (as opposed than a stand-alone article created from scratch) and is bound by WP:NNC more than WP:FICT; it only needs to meet WP:V, and does so using primary sources. Torc2 (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot establish verifiability only through primary sources, it needs to establish its significence through real world content, it is not ok for articles to remain permanently a B class in-universe unreferenced article. And by the way, when did the fiction guidelines become unimportant or ignorable? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real world content of the main article is in part inherited by the sub-article. The Fiction guideline isn't unimportant or ignorable, just subservient to WP:IAR. Insisting that an article must stand completely isolated on its own is a damaging ideology for Wiki; editors need to recognize that size constraints are the only reason an article like this exists separately of its main topic, so to ignore the notability of the main article while judging the sub-article isn't healthy for Wikipedia. It's the same reason why an album automatically becomes notable if it's from a notable band, even though the album article, judged in complete isolation, wouldn't be notable. Futurama more than adequately meets any notability guideline you want to throw at it; some users researching the the topic absolutely will be interested in a list of places in Futurama; trying to argue about the notability of the article in isolation just doesn't work. Torc2 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valuable resource that lists areas/places where action occurred yet is not listed under the main episode article mdvbilt 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.200.98 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) — 75.33.200.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Its useful is not a criteria, what it contributes to Wikipedia is the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a discriminate list pertaining to a notable show, DVD movie, video game, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and other "Keepers" need to establish it has notability to stop deletion, as it cannot leech credibility off of the show. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of planets in Futurama. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, was also just nominated for deletion. Torc2 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of these places just serve as gags in the show, making this (essentially) just a list of jokes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real-world notability asserted, likely impossible to establish anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Express Ship

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was previously nominated in October 2006 and has seen no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - This passed the first AfD overwhelmingly without any mention of the article needing improvement. Torc2 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, but if it is important to the show, then it should be included in the shows article, and unless it is actually notable, it doesn't need its own page. We're half way there with this, already sufficiently mentioned elsewhere, now lets get rid of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and well referenced to episodes. The top 100 Wikipedia searches are for information on movies and television episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep article really is well written. And about the notability, well, it is a part central to a most famous tv show.. Allthough notability is not inherited. Count this as an ILIKEIT vote, i guess. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This already survived one AfD. Why's it being brought up again? The article is fine, and there's far too much information to merge back into the main Futurama article. Besides, we have a Starship Enterprise article. Torc2 (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought up again because consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but notability is permanent. It was agreed in the first vote that the ship was sufficiently notable. Basically all this AfD is check to see if the show is currently less popular than it was this time last year, which certainly goes against the spirit of WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. Torc2 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable ship in a notable show. If this goes then so must Starship_Enterprise, Battlestar_Galactica_(ship) and Tardis at least. Alberon (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no useful purpose out of the Futurama universe. References are made only to episodes -- needs external references to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To those who want to keep the article, when you say its notable, please demonstrate how, as this process allows for the establishment of notability with reliable sources, so we know your right. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Planet Express Ship is an important element of Futurama. The well-written information currently contained in the article would be lost if it would be merged into the Futurama article. Furthermore, the article about the ship would overwhelm the Futurama article if it were to be merged in.-- danntm ^T _C 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer, please remember to only consider arguments that actual have something to do with Wikipedia policy such as notability and reliable sourcing, not "I like it" and "It's useful". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a significant character on a notable TV show, voiced by a very notable actress (granted, for only one episode). It has its own action figure (one of only five characters) and Planet Express ship generates 1.47m Ghits. This has more than adequately passed WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but shorten. - Featured in more episodes than most of the main characters. However, plenty of the information in that article is non-verifiable cruft. Needs cleanup. - Chardish (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trimmed the in-universe cruft quite a bit and added a reference which should help somewhat. This was a "quick fix" so I'll try to take a more in depth look the next couple days, I have a couple other sources I may be able to tap but I have homework to do tonight... Star dust 8212 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with the added refs, just scrapes through as a sub-article. RMHED (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - From WP:FICT. "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style." Seems like that's the case here. Torc2 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the very next part of the sub-article section from WP:FICT goes on to say; "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible." So in other words it still needs to be individually sourced with real world info. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which it does, more than sufficiently (especially after User:Stardust8212's updates).Torc2 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it passes notability guidelines by being a ship that appeared in games, a television show, made for DVD movie, etc. as the major space vessel of the show. Some spaceships, whether it's the Millennium Falcoln or Planet Express Ship have considerble significance and recognizability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be improved with references it will have asserted notability, not because it was "in a movie". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they even made toys of it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is it? That wont sustain a whole article, that would probably fit as a part of a popular culture section for the main Futurama article. If we find a lot more, thats what we call notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check here for more. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My heart is warming toward the article, Stardust, and I thank you for being the only one at AFD that seems to understand that this is an opportunity not to complain but to improve articles. If you can find just a bit more, I think I can support keeping the article. Good work. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD'ing an article isn't a good way to "suggest" improvement. It's essentially taking a gun to an editor's head and saying "fix this like I want now or die!" This article went untagged for notability or sources, and was not tagged merger. AfD should only be used if there's nothing salvageable about the article. Torc2 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there may still not be enough for its own article, and a few hours ago it was garbage. Would you prefer I say "delete it anyway?" I am willing to admit I am wrong if I am proven wrong, and in this case I may have been mistaken, and it will be to Wikipedia's benefit. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that you tag articles and give editors a couple weeks to fix them up instead of immediately throwing an AfD at them and forcing them to fix it in a couple days. There are plenty of editors who don't check Wikipedia in a five-day span, let alone have enough time to put in the necessary research to fix the article up.Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for many that I feel might be notable I do, and for the ones I suspect have no notability I do a Prod or Afd, which is standard. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prior AfD survival and lack of tags didn't trigger any worries that your suspicions might be wrong? That the article was largely fixed to your satisfaction in a matter of hours (even though it would have survived in its previous state) doesn't make you think you might have been too harsh? I'm just saying that you could keep the stress levels down and the AfD boards a little clearer if you give people a nudge through more traditional ways, as WP:AFD suggests. Torc2 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I do, with articles that have a reasonable chance of being notable. This would be an exception, as the vast majority of the Afd's I have nominated have been deleted. And the previous AFD usually means that people with no regard for process or policy have blocked legitimate deletion. So I understand your point, but I do what you suggest already, even if this is a keepable article, which still needs to be established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as has been stated above the ship is notable as part of a larger topic and duplication of some plot elements from the episode pages is needed to write a complete article on the topic (it could be trimmed more). The Futurama article doesn't have room for this topic as it stands now so it is sensible to split it off. The article is reasonably well referenced for a fictional topic (I know, I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and I would note that many early !votes were prior to my cleanup and may not reflect the current article, though those people may still not find the article notable and that's fine too, I would ask them to take a second glance though. I suggest that if there is not sufficient consensus to keep this article as a stand alone that the relevant sections be merged to List of recurring robot characters from Futurama (please don't also nominate that for deletion, I need more time and there are more sources for it, I swear) where it kinda fits, sorta, maybe, or at least better than anywhere else besides it's own article which brings me back to my first point... Star dust 8212 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge, but I don't know if that would be the best parent article, too bad there isn't a technology in Futurama article...I agree, it is perhaps a better merger candidate at this point, Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was Technology (Futurama) which was merged into List of fictional devices in Futurama which was deleted four days ago. Alas! Star dust 8212 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about this it's possible that a better Technology in Futurama article could be created following the formula for Religion in Futurama. I would need to combine elements from Robots in Futurama (which is unreferenced anyway and could simply be redirected), Planet Express Ship and Suicide Booth and could also use some of the discussion from pages such as List of recurring human characters from Futurama#Celebrity heads. Obviously this would not be a list like the previously deleted content and I'd need to flesh out the real world content and babysit it quite a bit but it might be possible. If the decision here is to delete I may ask for a sandbox version of this article to build off of and if the decision is to keep perhaps some interested parties would come discuss this with me on a relevant talk page. Just another thought. Star dust 8212 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have noticed Juggs is doing this to a lot of futurama articles. I don't know what to make of that - this article has appeared in more episode of Futurama then the USAF Prometheus has in Stargate, and the Prometheus can keep it's page. One of many precidents that has been set - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter; what matters is that this article has references and notability, and the arguement that "other articles suck equally or more" doesn't exempt this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted this article has references and notability - why then are you nominating it for deletion? I can see 10 references and 3 other links alone citing this page for references, why is that insufficient? It would simply be easier to put "citation needed" where necessary. - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 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 to Futurama. I will merely redirect and leave merging to those interested. Mango juice^talk 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Express

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again, if it is important to the show, it should be discussed in their articles, which it already is. Not notable outside the scope of the show. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better to episodes The top 100 Wikipedia searches are for information on movies and television episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge meaningful content with Futurama if sources are not found to prove notability. Will ^(talk) 12:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Futurama and Redirect. Doc Strange (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to the content is speculative, or OR, merge the savageable content with Futurama or Planet Express Ship.-- danntm ^T _C 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Futurama. - Chardish (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect There really isn't enough extra info to justify having its own article. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:FICT and WP:SIZE, this is clearly a sub-article whose contents would make the main Futurama article too long and stylistically awkward. Trying to merge it would screw up the content here and in the main article. Torc2 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/Merge/Redirect as it fails to have any significant real world sources. RMHED (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Planet Express is a notable fictional business from a popular TV series that has been adapted into a DVD movie and multi-system video game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has no references its not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing, just like the other google results you've posted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge unless this fictional topic can be substantiated by real-world context. There's no need to shift inappropriate plot information if it isn't going to have any context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge ON ONE CONDITION - Notability does cover things that appear in shows themselves and may not necessarily be written down or you'd have to take down every episode and plot synopsis that appears in wikipedia. The one condition for merges is that someone who merges the page actually does their frakking job for once and creates a "Planet Express" section in the merge target page! - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 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. Neil ☎ 10:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.O.O.P.

The article is about a fictional government from the Television show Futurama, and it asserts no notability with reliable out of universe sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the various episodes that is entirely duplicative and unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again, if it is important to the show, it should be discussed in their articles, which it already is. Not notable outside the scope of the show. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better to episodes Well written. The top 100 Wikipedia searches are for information on movies and television episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because wikipedians search for fiction articles doesn't mean we need this in-universe plot repetition without any encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable independently of the show, and not enough information on it that it warrants its own article. - Chardish (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per my redirect oh so long ago. Pagra shtak 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Brannigan Begin Again", the Futurama episode which featured this fictional organization. DHowell 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article containing all themes to Futurama, including this article, the United States of Earth, and other similar Futurama themes. These themes are applicable to the real world, as they are satirical forms of existing government bodies and other organizations. KyuuA4 09:54, 4 December 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Drive

The road in question is not notable in any way. The Circle Drive article itself also contains no usefull information, merely stating that the southwestern portion of the road is part of the Yellowhead Highway. Circle Drive does not need a Wikipedia article.--CP 61 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~→Changed to Keep - Hmmm, can't wait for the thrilling installments of the next 29,999 roads left in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan! ;) NN and gives almost no useful information. Delete. Spawn Man (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep↑ Now sufficiant evidence for notability. Although the article prior gave no assertion of notability, the citations and minor expansions added do. Spawn Man (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, I think this one should go. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - weird but this seems a notable road. Seems to be a major ring road around Saskatoon. First proposed in 1913, built through the 80s and 90s and carrying 50k vehicles per day as of 2004. Seems a major road with a noted bridge, engineering reports, lots on money spent on widening. Its bridge (Circle Drive Bridge (Saskatoon)) has an article with some ok sources. There are news articles and at least 4 useful google books hits. Just a stub about a worthy subject - Peripitus (Talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Perpitus, but the stub needs to state the road's importance. A search does indicate that the road is a significant highway. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A significant ring road around a major city is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose if the road really is significant then it could use an article, but it should be expanded greatly upon what is currently there. A couple of paragraphs does not make for a good Wikipedia article.--CP 61 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good reason for a stub notice, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above. Make it a stub and it can be expanded. Drm310 (talk) 18:19, 29 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 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Push button click

Originally {{prod}}ed, author removed; may not meet notability requirements for groups and organizations nor notability requirements for musicians and ensembles; does not cite reliable, independent secondary sources, potential conflict of interest. slakr^\ talk / 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly lacks notability and might not even warrant a mention in the Butlins article. Lack of reliable sources should sound its death knell, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet MUSIC guidelines, not to mention it is poorly sourced anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It already has a whole section in the Butlins article, and IMHO even that is excessive. No reliable sources, no notability, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Covered in Butlins article. Xcstar (talk) 20:08, 28 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 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mortal Kombat arenas

Wikipedia is not a game guide, and besides that, this article is an in-universe repetition of plot and setting elements from the various Mortal Kombat game movie and book articles. As such, it is purely duplicative and has no encyclopedic content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, Cruft and a meandering waste of space. Merge any useful info into the actual game articles and then delete (If any useful information can be found!). Spawn Man (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this suggestion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above, especially WP:NOT and WP:FANCRUFT. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this suggestion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely in-universe indiscriminate list of game cruft items. No encyclopedic analysis, no evidence of reliable secondary sources providing evidence of notability. Sole reference is gamespot interview which fails to support the article where it needs supporting. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this suggestion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked at the link you provide (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). You seem to be suggesting my !vote is a a pro-forma "I don't like it" presented without valid rationale. Yet I clearly presented rationales, for instance it's entirely "in-world" which makes it unencyclopedic, since there is no "use" or "meaning" to be gleaned from the article which applies to this world. Further, the sole reference does not amount to the "extensive coverage" in reliable, secondary, sources. Perhaps you would care to explain the point you are trying to make, because I've gazed deeply into the entrails you link to and find no valid referent. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi, Pete! I'm only referring to the use of the unencylopedic word "cruft." I agree that the article should have more prose and more references, but that aspect falls under a "so fix it" rather than delete rationale, i.e. this kind of argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a discriminate list of verifiable items from one of the most notable game series in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this suggestion. Sincerely, --Chardish (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just making good faith suggestions by referencing a popular essay that many others use in these discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Over and over again, to the point of being disruptive. Stop assuming that none of us have read what anyone else posted in this discussion, including what you already posted before. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately, "indiscriminate gamecruft" has been copy and pasted to the point of disruption. We should not try to alienate our readership and volunteer editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is your rationale then you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - Chardish (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that would mean that those copying and pasting "indiscriminate gamecruft" would be violating POINT. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a legitimate argument rooted in policy to argue for a Keep on these articles, there is no point to continuing to post keep on all these crufty fan articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, he said "a discriminate" (meaning not indiscriminate) "list of verifiable items from one of the most notable game series in history." How is this argument any less "rooted in policy" than your unsubstantiated assertion of "indiscriminate gamecruft"? Perhaps if AfD were treated as an actual attempt to discuss with the goal of reaching consensus instead of just a forum for repeating one's personal opinions and interpretations of policies and making fun of anyone who disagrees with them, there would be a point to this. DHowell 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And also see WP:ILIKEIT.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is true that I do like the article, but I do also believe that it can and should be improved. Millions of people worldwide will be familiar with arenas from this majorly popular game and so it is worth keeping for historic purposes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Mortal Kombat games are notable, and so is Super Mario World. However, Wikipedia doesn't have a List of Super Mario Word worlds, or an article on the Donut Plains. • Supāsaru 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate gamecruft. - Chardish (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this suggestion and this argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft isn't always an "I don't like it" argument, so stop acting like it is. I'm finding it very disruptive that you post that just about everytime someone mentions the word cruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game guide content not suitable for Wikipedia. The game series is notable, but that doesn't make every aspect of it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. Highly indiscriminate since there are many arenas in Mortal Kombat and none of them assert their own level of notability (except for the pit fatality, but that's not relevant.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no out-of-universe information, with nothing to establish notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:45, 28 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 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rice University Police Department

Contested prod. Totally non-notable group. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. Doesn't deserve its own article, and merge to Rice University. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN police department. Spawn Man (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. The article fails to assert why it is notable - lots of organisations have their own security firms. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into Rice University, and redirect the page. (NN) We cannot delete the page after merging, as we need to keep the edit history, per WP:GFDL. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's really nothing much here to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; fails WP:ORG. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Majoreditor (talk) 18:09, 28 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. It appears an extensive and very good faith effort has been made to find WP:RS and WP:V without success. Sources currently in the article are all tied to the official site (except download figures) and most apparently authored by the creators. The notability of Little Fighter Online does not confer notability to this title. Because of the lack of sources, merging info into that article does not seem a good idea. Pigman☿ 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter 2

Article does not fulfill WP:N ~~(specifically WP:SOFTWARE)~~. The article is not listed for speedy deletion, as the current version is sufficiently different from the version that underwent the last AfD. Despite this, there has been no change in the subject or available sources. I personally have re-written the article and researched the subject, but the only sources I can find are primary sources, mostly from the game's official site. The title exists in game databases such as GameFAQs, IGN and Home of the Underdogs, but none of these have any content that can be used to establish notability. Several possible sources have been put forward in the article's discussion page, but none of them are reliable sources. The only professional source provided is the same Download.com download figure, which does not establish notability by itself. Scottie_theNerd 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again: Non notable, still. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Little Fighter Online According to the links Little Fighter Online has won significant awards [10] [11] As both are linked the sensible thing would be to merge them. WP:SOFTWARE is not a guideline or policy on notability, it cannot be used to justify deletion. --Neon white (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility of creating a Little Fighter (series) article was put forwarded in the discussion. However, there are absolutely no sources for either Little Fighter or Little Fighter 2, and only Little Fighter Online has any claim to notability. Some background based on the LF2 information could be included in LFO, but there isn't much content to merge in the first place. --Scottie_theNerd 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Little Fighter Online into a Little Fighter series. I understand what wikipedia wants. I understand that they want sources, but I belive this game deserve it's place into wikipedia. As Scottie said, there is not much to check up about the game because many old articles dissapeared. This game was very popular about 5 years ago. Download.com proves that it was very downloaded, also many gaming sites have LF2 into their databases, even if they don't contain much information about it. If these websites can have LF2 in their database I don't see why we can't. The information we have here is enough and it's at minimum. Also this game is freeware so a article in wikipedia is not "comercial". If Little Fighter Online can have an article, even if it's popular only in korea, and LF2 which was popular world wide can have an article, I don't see whay LF2 can't say, even if it's information is at minimum. --PET (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a directory. It does not serve the online community by keeping a record of everything in existence. Articles do not exist for that reason alone. Little Fighter Online has some claim to notability due to winning several awards, but bear in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These discussions have brought up a lot of claims that LF2 "deserves" and article, but articles are "deserved" when they are established to be notable. Again, you claim that we have "enough" information, but the only content the article has is a description of the gameplay based off the official site and a very brief background on the creators. It's definitely there, but I can't see how that is "enough" to prove that the subject is notable. --Scottie_theNerd 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There just needs time for a professional source to come up. Improvement could be added to the article as many other games have improvement warnings such as Soldat. The game is very popular back then and probably had tons of article about it. It is still popular now among the gaming fans but probably the press due to the game being old or even already written before hasn't published anything yet. Little Fighter 2 deserves it's article as much as Soldat. Game4Fans (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Press articles on popular games don't disappear that easily. If we can't find any sources to work with now, and given that the game is over eight years old and no longer being developed, it is highly unlikely that any sources will appear in the future. From what I've researched, there was no press coverage when the game first came out. It's a small project by two people, and while it may be a very popular download, I have not found any trace of coverage from any major gaming site. If, somehow, reliable sources appear, we can re-create the article. This article was re-created without any new sources being sourced. It is not identical to the deleted article, but it suffers from the same lack of sources. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that Soldat is not notable, tag it for deletion if you please. --Scottie_theNerd 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't that your job? Or are you only picking new LF2 articles? ^_^ Game4Fans (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My job? I don't patrol every single article on Wikipedia. If you think an article should be deleted, you tag it. --Scottie_theNerd 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the game is not notable, even a search for its Chinese name turns up no non-directory non-forum sources. It is relevant to the notable game Little Fighter Online, and should be merged into that article. User:Krator (t c) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any of it can be sourced, else Delete. No significant notability and I bet sourcing this would be a nightmare, if indeed it's possible at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried. There's nothing on hand that can be used. An editor recently identified an issue of a Hong Kong game magazine that recommended it and provided it on disc, but it doesn't look like anyone can locate the article. --Scottie_theNerd 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked through my stack of gaming magazines and the usual website sources, but cannot find any significant coverage per WP:N. Naturally, a mention on the Little Fighter Online article would be appropriate (which I'm glad to see now asserts notability.) Marasmusine (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Little Fighter has its own following, quite separate from commercial games. Not appearing in someone's particular stack of magazines or usual website sources does not qualify or disqualify an article. Live and let live. User:BVidHVid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.31.192 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources are unavailable, the article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Being popular or having a following does not qualify a subject to have an article on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Little Fighter Online which does have ample sourcing, or just let it be, it will most likely improve over time. RFerreira 07:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the "most likely [to] improve over time" part. After one deletion and re-creation, no progress has been made on finding sources to establish notability. If anything, this is less likely to improve over time, so merging with LFO is probably the expedient option. --Scottie_theNerd 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense to a paragraph and Merge to Little Fighter Online. Fin ©™ 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is just a small article which was intended to let people know about Little Fighter 2. They could not source many so called "real sources" because small games like Little Fighter 2 are games that do not need very many article on them but do have lots of fans. Because it is a shareware game, it is also clear that no one is trying to advertise the game. Why delete an article that clearly deserves to be here, on Wikipedia?--Spazit (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (forgot signature first time around.. which was like 2 minutes before this)[reply]
- Firstly, the game is freeware. Secondly, as pointed out again and again, articles deserve to be on Wikipedia based on how notable they are. If an article does not have sources that can establish its notability, it does not "deserve" to be on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems as though it can not meet sourcing requirements per WP:N. However, mention can be given in the proposed merge article. SorryGuy 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my very humble (and occasionally incorrect) opinion, the biggest issue in most deletion debates of this nature is the article's notabilty. In this case the verifiability policy almost rules this article inadmissible. I don't mean to say that in any cruel way, but the policy states that:If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This single third-party source does not establish notability. The article suggested for merging above, seems not to be about the same game - apparently, it's about a different game, with different styles. Adding any of the unsourced information in this article to that one would simply confuse the reader. _Jame§^ugrono 06:20, 8 December 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 Abrogo (delete) (the Latin citations were a traditional "dummy" typesetting text & comedy/tragedy play by Rev. Jacob Masen, SJ) SkierRMH (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubies

Delete as hoax article. No real sources can be found for this "disease". None of the references given have any relevance to the subject. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as original PROD nominator. Obvious hoax. —Travis ^talk 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Someone needs to verify the source. It isnt a hoax as it claims to be sourced however badly it is written. --Neon white (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and lack of sourcing to include in the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Further researches suggests to me that it is, in fact, uttter rubbish.--Neon white (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Looks like a hoax. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, no sources can be found on "Ubies" in this form. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber Delete! - A smartly written HOAX. Spawn Man (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter nonsense. The sources used in the article have nothing to do with "ubies" as a disease, or anything else. Hal peridol (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Open your eyes... you are all blind! I have edited the article to add more evidence. Read and learn. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Above editor is now suspect (look at the changes he made). JuJube (talk) 07:27, 27 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 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Oehling

procedural nomination—This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD on 2007-09-02. It was subsequently re-created 2007-10-27 with the (partial) edit summary "Needed for comprehensive view of 2006 Gubernatorial Election". The first PROD reason: "failed political candidate"; the second PROD reason: "Non otable (sic) failed political cadidate". Both first and second PROD were applied by the same editor. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not receive significant media coverage. The sources listed in the article just give a brief mention of him. Fails BIO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; poorly sourced. Appears not to have any significant achievements apart from being an also-ran in an election. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sourcing to maintain a bio. The only pertinent google news hit mentions him in passing.--Sethacus (talk) 07:12, 27 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. — Scientizzle 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic Sun

Delete fails WP:BAND, 1 release on a label and no evidence of meeting any other criteria there; sourced to myspace and the record label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the album

Nomadic Sun (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 21 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, Caknuck (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For now. Maybe someday the group will meet our guidelines, but not today. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources present nor found nor other indication that it meets WP:BAND. --Tikiwont 09:47, 3 December 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 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Beautifuls

Contested prod for an album to be released on January 29, 2008 Seems to fail notability. WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New album is officially announced with supporting tour. If it's still not notable thats fine, but I am not speculating. SeanGustafson (talk) 15:18, 21 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, Caknuck (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless better, reliable sources can be found. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What better sources than the CBC and Chart, which is the primary Canadian music magazine, do you imagine could possibly exist? Bearcat 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added reference to CBC Radio program that played the first single from the album. The CBC is as reliable as it gets in Canada. SeanGustafson 17:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article is attempting to crystal-ball; it's a purely factual summary of the confirmed details of an album that's going to be released in six weeks. That's a completely normal thing to have an article about — we do it all the time for announced albums by notable recording artists. There's a whole category of albums that haven't been released yet, in fact. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits speculation about the future; it does not prohibit a basic summary of the known facts about something that hasn't happened yet. Keep. Bearcat 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjd0060. GJ 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What better sources than the CBC and Chart, which is the primary Canadian music magazine, do you imagine could possibly exist? Bearcat 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very reliable sources. Not WP:CRYSTAL when details have already been announced and reported.DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. I heard the first single, Piano Blink, last week on CBC Radio 1. DoubleBlue (Talk)[reply]
Chart and the CBC are reliable sources; it's unclear to me why this would even be in question. Keep. --Paul Erik 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's reliably sourced and for a well-known artist. Delete it now and it'll just need to be recreated in a short while, anyway. Shawn in Montreal 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-sourced article about an announced forthcoming release by a notable recording artist. As Bearcat points out, there is no speculation here - WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Victoriagirl 03:46, 3 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apache James

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic is not notable -- Jreferee t/c 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a non-notable piece of software, not to mention there aren't any reliable, third party sources/references. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 21 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, Caknuck (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relible evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 28 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. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virgin Islands Creole phrases

Per WP:NOT and WP:V, this article is an unsourced indiscriminate list of phrases from Virgin Islands Creole; there is no criterion for exclusion as long as the phrase belongs to that language. Furthermore, as the article's creator says in this edit summary and my talk page, there may not be any resources that can verify lists of phrases for Virgin Islands Creole. Also, while there are pages like list of French phrases and list of Latin phrases, Virgin Islands Creole is not notable enough to have its own page of phrases Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To quote directly from WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide"... "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not."--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Virgin Islands Creole is not notable enough to have its own page of phrases"? Who determines what is notable? Why the bias? Also, this is not a prescriptive guide for "prospective speakers of such languages." Anglophone Caribbean creoles are usually only spoken by the native people of such Caribbean islands and can never be learned from reading a prescriptive guide. Vgmaster 22 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgmaster (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there is little scholarly research on the subject, especially compared to languages like French or Russian, can serve as a more objective judgement of its notability. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:10, 22 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, Caknuck (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an easy one. The direct quote from guideline above is all that needs to be said here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per HisSpaceResearch. (Couldn't quote it better) Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geh from here Delete man - Some fodee made some of that article here tinking it was kriss, but I's tink it was buck. ;) As per above (Especially the quote from the WP:NOT). Delete. Spawn Man (talk) 03:39, 27 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. --- RockMFR 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket jumping

Not one citation for this term, which might be made up, and no assertion of notability. The article appears to be a synthesis of gameplay elements from various games to make its point. It was nominated for deletion before, and is no more notable now than it was then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Neologism, I can't find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete [12] example of the term being used in Custom PC magazine therefore the article is verifiable and not original research. It was also in common enough use when Quake 3 arena was released to become the title of a musical piece on the game soundtrack. On second thoughts it probably should be in Wiktionary. --Neon white (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that's good to know. The term appears to be a neologism still and seems to be limited to a dictionary definition type entry fit for wiktionary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WT and delete: Not for Wikipedia, so trim down (way down) and send to -tionary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well written and convincing, but it is OR, Cruft and NN. A whole article on "Let's see what happens when I fire a rocket at my feet" isn't constructive. Spawn Man (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Oh, for...~~ this is an extremely prevalent concept known to literally millions, or more likely tens of millions, of people. It's a basic part of an entire genre. There's no way destruction of its article would be beneficial.
I'd also like to ask the nominator to consider something, not as an insult but as help with his editing^*. As Neon White demonstrated, he jumped to multiple wrong conclusions in evaluating this article - mistakes that seem like they would've been wholly avoidable with some more research, consulting people who are more knowledgeable in the field, and/or a larger assumption of good faith regarding the editors of the article. We're very much not in a rush, so there's no real reason for these things to happen. Since they have, I advise backing off somewhat and being more cautious. --Kizor (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very simple question to be answered in this AFD, and that is, "does this article have notability?" Note I said "Simple", not "easy". Simple answers are often difficult to follow through on. If this article fails this simple test, it should be deleted. And I am not rushing, the article has 5 days to prove itself just like any other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I am a gamer, I found this information too game specific. I think we should merge all the video game movements articles into 1 article, let's say Movements in video games. In that case, we can potentially mention game physics and various different "jumping" implementations. Even so, the prospect of finding citations is still low. (may be game programming documentations?) --Voidvector (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Cut and send to wiktionary. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 14:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I prefer to keep it in one piece, but merging it with the other articles sounds like a great idea. 1yodsyo1 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

^*: This statement may sound impossibile. I hasten to add that I've also complimented a woman's breasts and not been taken as having an ulterior motive, and gotten hammered out of altruism. Doing the impossible is kind of fun.

Keep this is quite a famous component of the first person shooter genre. It's not true that the term has no citations; the article cites [13] which quotes John Romero (father of the genre!) using it. The article is certainly not a dictionary definition, so transwikiing to wiktionary doesn't make sense. There is plenty of cruft in here, though, which should be cleaned up. — brighterorange (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added three references in newspapers that I found with LexisNexis, to help establish notability. It believe it would be easy to find citations for some of the factual material, especially in printed strategy guides for the games in question. — brighterorange (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -But isn't this till a neologism, and should be at least moved to Wiktionary? What are peoples thoughts on this? Judgesurreal777 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand your point. The term is 10 years old at a minimum, so that is at the far reaches of what one could consider a neologism in 2007. But even so, there is no prohibition on having articles about things with neologistic names. If you look at the neologism article, for instance, you'll find loads of examples of things that we say are neologisms with bluelinks to perfectly fine articles about them. The rule is WP:NOT a dictionary, and for that, we are simply not supposed to have articles that are dictionary definitions. This is clearly far more than a dictionary definition, because it discusses the history, its application in several different games, its appearance in movies, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. G4 TechTV just did a segment all about rocket jumping, I don't see how this wouldn't be notable. No need to discriminate just because its gaming-related. RFerreira 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the nomination and ensuing discussion, you will find that the issues are these; is this a neologism fit for wiktionary, and if that is true, is there anything encyclopedic remaining? Judgesurreal777 08:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could add the TechTV segment as a reference. Is it online? Even if not, it would be a useful improvement to the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's marginally notable, but there's really not much more to say about it than what it is, so an encyclopedia entry is not warranted. Xihr 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying what something is is not the same as defining a word (and thus is in the scope of an encyclopedia article). Even still, the article does discuss the history, its varied appearance in several games, and outside of gaming. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a lot more references to this article, to print sources, television, and the web. (Sorry that I am coming late to the discussion.) If you commented based on the article with only 2 references, please take another look... — brighterorange (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reliable references, with thanks to brightorange for taking the time to find and source them. One thing I'd suggest is that merging all the FPS-specific moves like this into a single article may be a way forward, however that's a later discussion, for now this should be held onto.Someone another 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How old does something have to be before it does not become a "neologism"? Can I go and nominate iPod because it's only X years old? Silly nomination. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, else Condense (maybe into a stub?) - it's a bit too detailed in parts. Fin ©™ 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Jennings

Unreferebced short stub on a superecentenarian, containing nothing which could not be included in a 1-line list entry. Had been merged by me ([14], [15]) to the List of British supercentenarians, but restored[16] without comment and without improvement. There is problem at all with having articles on extremely old people if they meet WP:BIO (see e.g. Katherine Plunket or Jerzy Pajaczkowski-Dydynski), longevity is no justification for recreating unreferenced stubs which say nothing more can be conveyed in a list entry and for whom notability is not established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO, nothing notable about her. I've got a great-great-aunt who's a supercentennerian; that alone doesn't make her notable outside my family. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your great-great-aunt who's a supercentenarian on the GRG.org page? If not, they would be interested in adding her. Neal (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Indeed, what is her name? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being the oldest person in the UK for two years seems to lend some notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Again, and redirect. No need for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of achievements, other than being old, means this article is destined to remain a stub forever. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Again, it's a game of who wants to Google it (the references). I think she (the 2nd oldest person in the world) is as notable as the 2nd tallest person in the world, etc. I note that these past AfDs in my contribs are a result of finding articles with no references. Neal (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Being age 115 is notable in itself because even the current oldest person, Edna Parker, has not reached that age. Also, she as some info on her. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one. I note that WP:STUB does not prohibit articles which will remain short but cover the topic properly.DGG (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sound reasoning provided by Neal, DGG, and others. RFerreira 07:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Morris

Article on person claimed to have been the oldest in the world. Notability not established per WP:BIO; there are no refs to WP:RS reliable sources, let alone substantive ones to establish notability. This stub had been merged by me to List of British supercentenarians (see [17] and [18]]), but was subsequently unmerged without comment and without improvement. There is nothing in the article which could not be accommodated in a list, with a footnote to the effect that she "attributed her longevity to some whisky a day". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Again, and redirect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of achievements, other than being old, means this article is destined to remain a stub forever. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. All a good game of who gets to Google it. Anyways, I think she's (the oldest person in the world) is as notable as the tallest person in the world or the heaviest person in the world, or even the strongest person in the world in an achievement. Neal (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:BIO cites age, height or weight as factors in notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question rather is why any oldest person in the world would be not notable? Extremely sexy (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, you are confusing notabilty with noteworthiness, which is a different issue. They would not be notable if nobody has bothered to write a decent article on them which says more than that they are very old and that they are still alive, which is what appears so far to be the case with this woman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bart, the problem is not every oldest person in the world is notable. Many of the oldest person in the world in the 1960s, '50s, and '40s, we know nothing about. Just a first name, last name, date of birth, date of death, country born, etc. This just makes them a factoid, so it will be hard to make them a Wikipedia article. Best put in a table. Anyways, Eva Morris does not fit that category, as she died in 2000, however, she's not as popular on the Internet in comparison to the oldest person in the world like 2007 and 2006. Her article was just lacking references and citations. Neal (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There have been 80+ British supercentenarians, but a few who might stand alone, and a separate article is needed for the world's oldest person infoboxes anyway. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no need to create under-referenced stubs just in order to have infoboxes. Lists can and should be used instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Reply to BrownHairedGirl, Bart beat me to it) If I said being the oldest person in the world of the tallest person in the world is mentioned in or passes WP:BIO, then that would be something else. So false question. Neal (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neal, it's not a false question, it's the only relevant question. WP:BIO is the guidelines by which we assess the notability of people, and "tallest person", "oldest person" etc are not mentioned there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per user "NealIRC" in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per user "NealIRC" and "Bart Versieck". Will try to add refs as I saw something about her somewhere. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one. .DGG (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Being the oldest living person in the world, however temporarily, is grounds for notability. I can see that gives us a lot of problematic articles, like this one; but I don't think outright deletion is the solution. Terraxos 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Notability has not been established per WP:BIO, but deletion is not the only alternative: the article can be merged to List of British supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 4 December 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, seems to be a clear consensus here. This closure is no reflection of my own !vote in it, but rather a reflection of the general consensus among other !votes. The discussion has been active for three days now, so I see no harm in closing it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Mall Valdosta

Mall seems to fail notability criteria. Only claim to anything in the article is the fact that this mall siphoned five stores off of another shopping center. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another non notable shopping mall. It is just there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are several articles [19] [20] all be it local ones that are specifically about it, the newspaper appears to be reliable and verifiable. --Neon white (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak Keep not a very notable mall, but the sources by Neon white are a start. Actually the page ~~is out of date~~ was out of date until I moved it. It's no longer "Colonial Mall Valdosta", it's been reverted to its original name, Valdosta Mall. ~~The local sources may be reliable, but they establish only local notability, which isn't usually enough.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to "weak keep" as I've added a couple sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read Wikipedia:Notability you will find no mention of locality in relation to notability. It says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The lack of multiple sources may be an issue. In this case it is more usual to merge the article with a more general article such as Valdosta, Georgia --Neon white (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is called Colonial Mall Valdosta, not Valdosta Mall. The link Valdosta Mall does not work. This mall is on [http://colonialprop.com/property-info/shopping-info.php?cid=1260 the Colonial Prooperties website and it still says Colonial Mall above the mall. Why do you think its called Valdosta Mall? It isn't. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The http://shopvaldostamall.com link is just down right now, it was working an hour ago. Also, Colonial's website is out of date. See this and this, both of which say that Jones Lang LaSalle recently acquired "Valdosta Mall in Valdosta, Georgia". It's also listed as "Valdosta Mall" on Jones Lang LaSalle's list of properties. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating articles for deletion is just another method of Nazi Wiki Editors who would rather tag or delete something instead of fix it or add to it. How can anything become notable when someone jumps in and nominates it for deletion an hour after it is posted? I have more I want to add to this article and will do so later if it isn't deleted. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article as it currently stands provides a basic claim of notability. Not only do I question the validity (and civility) of an AfD created within seven minutes of the article's creation, but I question how the nominator could have fulfilled his obligations under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research the article's potential notability and to edit and improve the article, if possible. The fact that the article has been improved after the seven minutes alloted by the nominator would seem to make it apparent that this basic due diligence has not been met. While I believe that the nomination is inappropriate, I do not feel that this AfD proves that the nominator subscribes to any elements of Nazi Wiki ideology. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating an article for deletion 7 minutes after its been posted is suspicious none-the-less. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep might just scrape past WP:N. RMHED (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply does not assert notability. Fails WP:CORP. Based on previous AfDs it would need to be at least 800,000 sq ft to be notable. Vegaswikian 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anything that can be proven "Based on previous AfDs", can also be refuted "Based on previous AfDs". AfD goes on a case by case basis. Your basing notability on size, see WP:BIG Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments above, scrapes beyond WP:N and verifiability, but should be retained nonetheless. RFerreira 07:24, 2 December 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 reworked and renamed article, One Australia policy. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial policy of John Howard

NOTICE: THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RENAMED, AND IS NOW TITLED: One Australia policy.

An POV fork of John Howard that reflects a very narrow view of the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To follow up from the nomination, the article title is grossly misleading as it barely mentions policy at all but is more a list of Howard's utterances on race and includes other's subjective opinions of Howard's views on race. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: It's an obvious fork. Shot info (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definite POV piece, and I cannot think of any neutral alternative. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant attack page which would make a fine entry on a partisan blog, but has no place in an encyclopedia. (Speedy delete if permitted). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a POV one at that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep ~~hopelessly POV~~ much improved, but is this one policy so notable as to have its own page? It started as a long complaint about Mr. Howard's policy...it's much more NPOV now, but I still wonder if it's being given undue weight. JJL (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all things Johnny said, but it's not necessary to have this kind of article, implying certain conclusions to be drawn from the statements, when there's such a wealth of material out there in academia drawing those conclusions for us. Material about his views on these matters should be incorporated into the main article, drawing on such sources. --bainer (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the reworked version as discussed below. --bainer (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatant piece of POV. If any of this is to be included in Wikipedia, it should be in John Howard and nowhere else. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 02:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of POV. A balanced discussion in the John Howard article may be appropriate but not this article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although most of the article is factual, it is an obvious POV fork which only gives a negative view of Howard. Spawn Man (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The following comment is from the founding editor)

Keep, because nobody above is questioning the factual accuracy of the article. It is all meticulously referenced, and historically accurate. So how can a fact in itself be POV? You could argue that the wording is POV, but not the fact itself. If the wording is POV, why not change the wording? I don't believe the wording of the article is adding editorial comment. If it is, then that can be fixed. If the title is worded badly, it can be reworded. It doesn't fit the definition of POV Fork, as it doesn't present existing information differently from the main John Howard article. Yes, it is an article split, because we all know there would not be enough room to add all this information to the already long John Howard article. The information and quotes presented in the article are historic, and an "article split" is the only way to expand on information that is already in the original article. Why would someone want to throw away such thoroughly referenced information that is not factually disputed? The decision about the future of this article should not be made from comments that say "POV" and nothing else. The decision should be made by debating specific issues such as factual accuracy and the way those facts are presented. Please read Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting... about the deletion of useful content. Thanks, Lester 03:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section it says that although biased content can be useful, to keep it you need to remove the bias. To keep this article it needs to be renamed or have more content on his actual policies and needs to have all the biased content made NPOV. However, IMO, if you removed all the biased content from this article, there'd be none left. I stated above that the article was factual, but the article is by no means NPOV and definitely does fit the description of a POV fork and that is enough to delete the article. Spawn Man (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow on from Spawn Man, I think the response from BrownHairedGirl is a wise one. It would be a great blog entry but it does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and is bordering on an attack page. If you want to write partisan political essays, start a blog; this is an encyclopaedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge?, my initial reaction on looking at the article is that this is a page of facts, but presented in such a way as to give meaning to them that may not be in truth what they are. Some of this gave me the impression of being left incomplete, and was not necessarily based on racial policy. It almost borders on a form of original research. On the other hand, I am sure that some of this can be included in the article this was split off from. Some of it may be salvageable, and may be important enough to save, but not as a separate article LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crude misleading politically motivated bile. It attempts to paint Howard as a racist which he clearly is not. Nick mallory (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, and maybe even quite friendly view on the topic. It would be nice to balance this article with the JH's excuse to the Aboriginal people, but he took his sides. Leaving this aspect of his policies out is glossing over. As a lot of aspects that can be considered less glorious about JH are removed (out of space reasons) from the main article, where shall they go? Or is Wikipedia just about the nice things in life? --Lord Chao (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a racial policy exactly? What have sanctions against south africa, skilled immigration and aboriginal affairs got to do with each other? There is no racial policy of John Howard. It's nonsense. Nick mallory (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these opinions of Howard's constitute a policy. RMHED (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a "policy" so much as a collection of comments and opinions that he expressed on various aspects of race relations in Australia and elsewhere, and designed to advance a particular POV. The odd one or two, particularly those after he came to power in '96, might be useful inclusions in his main article to illustrate particular positions he adopted, but if they aren't there already there's probably a good reason for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I hate the guy for running Australia like a shonky business for the past 11 and a half years, having an article like this is a bit unfair to the bloke. Some portions of the article can be reinserted into the main article though, as they do have sources and some are relevant. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an attack page, and I don't think it's going to be possible to make it not an attack page without changing it into something different. BigHaz's suggestions above seem a sensible way to deal with the situation and I endorse them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per BigHaz. Twenty Years 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to moderator: Delete but please salvage anything useful - as an article it is completely POV and unacceptable, but some of this is surely salvageable as sentences to be put in another article where appropriate. I ask the moderator closing this debate to consider the fact that the article is referenced and some of these sources might be well used in other articles, though certainly not all together. JRG (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like Howard, but this article is cherry-picking his record to push a POV. Anything notable should be included in its proper context in the John Howard entry. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Salt and ban troll creator who has done nothing but disrupt the wikipedia project with badly written, badly sourced garbage. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he had good intentions Prester, unlike your contributions page full of reverts. Timeshift 07:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and see nothing to suggest Lester was acting in bad faith. Davewild 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rework, renamed One Australia policy The title has been changed to the less controversial One Australia policy, as this was the title of the policy chosen by John Howard himself. The article is a sincere attempt to document this policy from way back in 1988-1989, and the article has been limited to look at this period alone. Most of the politicians from that era are now out of politics, with the exception of Philip Ruddock, who was a major dissenter and voiced his objection to the policy. Some aspects of the article have previously existed in the John Howard biography, however, having a separate article allows for more scope and the inclusion of other Coalition members' involvement and quotes. Once again, all sentences are meticulously cited. I ask all editors to give the article a fresh appraisal, and to think of the historical importance of these events, almost 20 years ago. Thanks, Lester 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lester has moved the page in direct violation to the policies outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Can an admin please move it back. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages often move during deletion debates - often spelling corrections, or finding a more NPOV title. As long as the AfD tag points to the correct location and the article remains listed on AfD, there is really no problem. Orderinchaos 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I moved the article using this guideline: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion, and placed a notification at the top of this AfD page, per that guideline. I think the notices make the title change clear to other editors. The change in title is vital to the reworking of this article in answer to some of the concerns listed in comments above. I ask the Admins to allow this AfD process to continue for some more days, to allow time for the editors to view the changes, including the title change, and to add their revised comments. Thank you, Lester 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lester asked me to comment on the article move to One Australia policy. He appears to have followed the Guide to deletion correctly and see no reason (in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or elsewhere) for it to be moved back during this discussion (except if people think it was better under its previous title?). I am sure the closing admin will consider the whole discussion and any changes made to the article. Davewild 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes clear that it was an actual policy, and it had a significant effect on the political history of that era. Rebecca 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca - well referenced article on a specific policy on a specific time, much like our article on WorkChoices. Orderinchaos 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be neither here nor there, but at the time of One Australia, the Coalition was in opposition - unlike WorkChoices, which it was able to implement. It was before I was conscious of politics, so there could well be an argument that parts of One Australia survived into the Coalition's policies later on, but the impression from the article is that it died a rather unlamented death when Howard lost the leadership to Peacock. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they were in opposition. However, it played a big role in the downfall of Howard at that time, and the electoral and political woes of the Liberal Party in that period. I don't think anyone's claiming that traces of the policy survived, but it was a significant policy in the political history of 1980s Australia. Rebecca 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Like I said, this all took place before my political memories began. What I was getting at, though, was the question of whether a short-lived policy put forward by a leader of the opposition 7 years or so before he was elected was entirely notable, even though the man would later become PM. I'm more than willing to grant that it could be, but I was just a a bit sceptical myself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well referenced and describes an important government (of the day) policy and it's evolution well. —Moondyne 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Coalition came to power in 1996, some 7 years after the events in this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is neither here nor there. Rebecca 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [ec and then the doorbell rang] yep, my bad. Opposition policy. —Moondyne 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opposition policies can still be notable. This one certainly is. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good move, now the article and its content fits. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but this article is inherently POV. There's almost no way in which this article can be constructed so that it does not criticise the Policy. _Jame§^ugrono 06:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a policy existed though, look at the sources. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florrie Baldwin

Notability not established per WP:BIO. One article of a few hundred words in a local paper, two refs in non-WP:RS sources, and nothing much to say about her other than that she is old and eats egg sandwiches. Article has been merged into List of British supercentenarians#Florrie_Baldwin, but has been unmerged, without improved references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Again, and redirect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. All a good game of who gets to Google it (references). Also per being the oldest person in a sizeable country, U.K. Neal (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several hits on Google. They all say she is old and eats egg sandwiches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but also that she is currently (at age 111 1/2 namely) the oldest person in the entire U.K., a very big country. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So she is the oldest person in the UK, eats egg sandwiches, and has a great-grandson. That's not a biographical article, that's an item in a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't google her name yet, so it looks like all she is is a factoid. Looks like she isn't worthy of her own article by that judgment. Neal (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong, and I will prove this with a lovely reference for this article, Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per user "NealIRC" in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article does seem better if merged with the British list, but then, again, she is the oldest of that group. Tim Ross·^talk 18:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of British supercentenarians no sources establishing notability. RMHED (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per bart and neal. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one.Oldest in a major country is notable. .DGG (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "major country" exactly? Cheers, CP 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Nothing here that couldn't be done justice to in an entry at List of British supercentenarians Cheers, CP 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of British supercentenarians. A British supercentenarian is pretty much all she is, she has some information besides bare bones stuff, but not enough for her to be worthy of a whole article. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the oldest person in a given country is notable enough. RFerreira 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - at least while she's still alive, she's notable for one relatively significant fact, being the oldest person in the UK. After she dies, I agree that she'd no longer be particularly notable and this article should then be deleted. Terraxos 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please read WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of British supercentenarians. She seems notable now because she happens to be the oldest person in the UK, but that won't last forever, and she has no other claim to notability. Therefore, merge and redirect. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:40, 4 December 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 Dltd SkierRMH (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmplz

This is a article that had a prod placed on it, but was removed by the author. I believe it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not for Neologisms. Icestorm815 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page has no worth and no place on wikipedia. --Neon white (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete A1 Article has little or no context and is simply a shortening of the word dimples. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know if it is considered a neo, but obvious delete anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem an encyclopaedic subject. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is either a nonnotable neologism, article with little/no context, or patent nonsense. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLte is a shorter way of saying Delete - Absolutely useless and NN. Wikipedia is not a palce for neologisms made up in school one day. Spawn Man (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dltplz (politely) ;-) unsourced neologism Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 27 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 SkierRMH (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richburgers

Blatant neologism. Has applicability to only one locale. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, non-notable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO as well. Icestorm815 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the reasons already stated above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply neologism. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism that use is limited to one site. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete made up in school. JJL (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and makes no sense to me. Spawn Man (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:48, 27 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. Acalamari 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (Irish singer)

Unreferenced, unsubstantiated if not questionable notability. Article seems to contradict itself (both boy band and girl group) Dougie WII (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly speedy. Article is very cluttered and makes almost no sense. A search for "Angel Caffery" online turns up nothing, nor do searches on the singles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads very much like an advert and not a very well written one. --Neon white (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and possible COI (IE, writer is Angel or someone who knows her), and if not, reads like and advert for Angel. Spawn Man (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; the singer did not even have a record label, according to the article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:40, 28 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 G7 (author requests deletion), deletion made by User:Edgar181, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life (+)

The notability and very existence of "Madness Studios" is questionable, WP:CRYSTAL. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the game exists and seems to be the product of one amateur developer who i believe created the article. I don't think it passes notability. --Neon white (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think that this is notable, and the lack of sources (in the article, and on the internet in general) don't help things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 27 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proton International

This is a barely notable committee within a somewhat notable organisation. Anything that can be said about this committee should be said in the article about U.S.S. Proton, but that doesn't exist. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Utrecht University. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the information is relevant or notable enough for the article on Utrecht University. Basically, there is nothing worth merging. Redirecting to Utrecht University is reasonable though. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No merge, as Utrecht University does not mention U.S.S. Proton. Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was created by Chrisevers (talk · contribs), a member of the Proton International committee. He also created the article on the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Proton International), which is also up for deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Aecis, Delete as COI and non-notable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither notable enough nor verifiable enough to be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable student group within a single department of a single university. Possible speedy as nn-club. Nothing worth merging. DGG (talk) 11:25, 29 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:202.76.162.34