Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable EPFL robots[edit]

AfDs for this article:

    This is a deletion nomination of three articles about robotics projects. They are part of a walled garden of related articles by Nct (talk · contribs), who appears to be involved with these projects. None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, failing our notability guideline. I will also be nominating the articles about the scientists involved in these projects for deletion for the same reason. Sandstein (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These robots are notable robots which are used in a number of laboratories which were not involved in their conception (while mobile robotics is a highly competitive field). I am sorry to say that I cannot imagine any excuse "None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources". Sandstein, you should read the sources provided in the articles before making such statements. Rama (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am from the EPFL indeed, yet I have not been involved in the Khepera at all, and not really in the e-puck (I only fixed a bug). I have moderately been involved in the development of the s-bot (I wrote its API). I think those robots have their place in Wikipedia, because they all were used by several different laboratories and produced dozen scientific publications. The Khepera, beside its Nature cover, returns 2220 hits when searched on google scholar (khepera mobile robot). The S-bot returns 107 hits on google scholar (s-bot mobile robot), was featured on Wired [1] and Slashdot [2]. A list of S-bot related coverage is available here [3]. Finally, the e-puck is newer, but already lead to several publications (22 hits on google scholar with e-puck mobile robot), including a SIGGRAPH one [4]. The two producers and several sellers is also uncommonly large for a research robot. --nct (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Khepera and S-bot, per the multiple laboratory usage and press mentioned by nct. Weak keep e-puck for the same reasons; I note that, beyond EPFL, the Future Applications Lab in Göteborg appears to be using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw the nomination for the first two robots, as sources indicating their notability are now accessible. I remain unconvinced about the E-Puck. The coverage in the SIGGRAPH article is not substantial, and just being used in laboratories does not confer notability under WP:N. Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the e-puck is notable because it is an educational robot, used in courses in several universities (google search (not scholar)), both a the level of undergraduate courses and during summer schools [5]. It is implemented in three simulators [6] [7] [8]. Nevertheless, even being an education robot, it has been used in research. Finally, there is several sellers worldwide. I agree that the article should be improved, but there is enough links on google for people to improve the article and not just throw it away. --nct (talk) 07:59, 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. — Scientizzle 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Munday[edit]

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

    Delete non-notable, has not made the requisite appearances in the Football League under notability guidelines for football players. Jonesy702 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment- Just a quick note on the reason behind this Afd. Jonesy702 has listed this article for deletion in retaliation for the fact that I instigated an Afd on an article he was heavily involved with (see the deletion discussion here). For his future reference I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a battleground.
    However, I cannot argue with the Afd- under current guidelines Munday fails notability criteria. It is worth noting that under the new guidelines proposed in this discussion Munday would meet the notability criteria, but consensus has yet to be reached on this matter. Either way, I won't be losing any sleep over this. Simon KHFC (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - With regards to Simon’s above childish comment, my nomination to delete this article has nothing, whatsoever to do with the recently deletion of one the pages I used to regularly update.
    I’m sorry if I’m coming across a bit bitchy, but I can’t believe what I have just read in the above comment. It's nice to see you have taken the time to check me out... any chance of a christmas card do you think? Jonesy702 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Three appearences in the Conference aren't notable either by the old or the proposed guidelines. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment- The first of the proposed guidelines states "has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure". Munday has met those criteria. Simon KHFC (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Since when was the Conference National a fully professional league? Jonesy702 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't say it was. He said "has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure" - Kidderminster are a fully pro club and the Conf Nat is a nationwide league..... ChrisTheDude 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know... but what has that got to do with the price of fish? Point is, it doesn't qualify. Jonesy702 16:11, 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. — Scientizzle 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin R. Reyes[edit]

    Martin R. Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Verifiability in question. I can't find anything about the subject's notability. There is not even a mention of the subject in any University of the Philippines sites or the "Father of Selective Logging System of the Philippines" claim aside from the sole external link Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Just searched google and can't find any secondary source asserting its notability. The sole link is a primary source which, I think, is not accepted due to the page's unestablished notability. Secondary must be sourced first. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs)00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Web of Science lists two of his articles, each cited by about half a dozen other articles. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I don't know if two articles satisfies notability rules. Besides, it still does not satisfy the subject's original claims. --Lenticel (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Neither do I. I offer the information for what it might be worth. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit. We can edit the article using his website as a reference and add his findings he wrote in his articles instead. Besides, I've seen A LOT of articles using a single site as its reference. Starczamora 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I know many articles relies on one references. However, for this article, the source is not independent nor reliable.--Lenticel (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete can't verify much except for the little that are also unsupportable. --- Tito Pao 04:47, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncyclopedia[edit]

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

    Source of many major vandalism attempts on Wikipedia. See WP:DENY. Notability questioned. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:27, 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. James086Talk | Email 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ladderman[edit]

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

    Article is about a non-notable comic from a single university campus. The only relevant result from a simple Google search was the link to the Wikipedia article. The talk page stated that the motivation for writing the article was to inspire the comic's creator to write more episodes. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete If there was an A7, unremarkable comics, it would be a speedy candidate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of notability. Unlikely to see any reputable sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No sources. Essay. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 21:57, 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoopy[edit]

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

    Hardly notable. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 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. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Mediterra Naples"[edit]

    "Mediterra Naples" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable planned community. Page used for marketing purposes most likely. Article created by Director of Sales of planning group. Leeannedy (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. I've tagged it with db-advert. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:20, 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 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloody Lucifer[edit]

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

    This page has no sources, and there are no hits for a graphic novel called "Bloody Lucifer" anywhere on Google. It seems to be bad fanfiction at best, vandalism at worst, and should thusly be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as possible. TheJoust (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Exorcise. The graphic novel, as the term is commonly used, didn't exist in the early 1800's, when this article claims it was written. There were some interesting collections that could qualify, depending on what kinds of definitions you're using, but there's no way that the book described in this article existed in 1795. This is just a terrible short story by someone who can't spell 'Martin,' disguised as an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree with FisherQueen, graphic novels didn't even exist in the 19th century. Chri$topher


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

    The result was speedy keep per criteria 1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions present. GRBerry 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spanish Courts for Violence against Women[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Spanish Courts for Violence against Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-encyclopedic collection of newspaper articles, including extensive copyright violations (direct translation of copyrighted articles from the spanish media) and a final section named "editors comment" (now erased) which confirms that this is nothing else than an essay. It has been deleted 6 times from WP.es Varano (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nominator had placed a {{prod}} tag, and then put it back after it was removed. Oops. The article creator has been blocked 24 hours for use of a sockpuppet; which use may have been triggered by the nominator's error in putting the prod tag back. The article creator won't be able to improve or comment for that period. GRBerry 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Specialized courts are usually notable, in the same way that government departments are. Consider the "gun courts" or "drug courts" of other jurisdictions. --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the courts are notable. This AfD proposal is not on the base of unotability but that this is not an encyclopedic article but a personal essay supported on newspaper clippings. --Varano (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Newspapers, in most cases, are given the benefit of the doubt as reliable sources, though some are spotty. The question here becomes, is the subject notable enough to warrant cleaning up the article and removing POV and Copyvio? If the article is to be kept for cleanup, and then sits for six months before being deleted at another AfD, then I'd say we should just delete it now. But, if someone plans to go through non-english sources and come up with an neutral article, even if a stub, then I'd say it should be kept. Also, a 24 hour ban on the author shouldn't hurt too badly, given that this debate should ideally run for 5 days or longer. But it's still a concern. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It's a worthy topic which has a fairly detailed, moderately sourced article which appears to have been written by someone with a strong interest in the topic. As a consequence, they inserted some of their personal commentary into the article. Perhaps they were not fully aware of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? In any case, there doesn't seem to be too much issue of whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic, only if this can be made into a policy-conforming article. I decided to take a first stab at it by nuking some sections which were either commentary or belonged on Wikisource or Wikiquote. There is still a lot of work to make this conform stylistically, but it's really not that hard to just delete the stuff that doesn't belong. —dgiestc 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have wikified the article and eliminated all of the POV and unrelated parts of the article (ok changed it completely)--Zape82 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Changed my "vote" after Zape82 and Dgies good job (note anyhow that the article has little in common with the original version). --Varano (talk) 11:14, 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 speedy deleted by User:Melburnian (CSDG10). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aboriginal Liberation Army[edit]

    Aboriginal Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    With members such as Gavin Wanganeen and Neville Bonner, I suspected a hoax. When I saw one of this editors previous contributions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian anti communist organization - this suspicion was strengthened. No evidence of actual existence, let alone notability can be found. Mattinbgn\talk 23:22, 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. Spellcast (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lindsey Hancock[edit]

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

    In my opinion, the sources don't show that this actor meets the notability criteria. The only reliable source cited isn't about this person, but about Matt Riddlehoover. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 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 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fratricide (band)[edit]

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

    Article was previously deleted as CSD A7 (when listed as Fratricide (Band)), after moving to the correct title, another editor re-tagged the article. I elected to move the article to AfD rather than re-deleting in order to allow discussion.

    Looking over the primary author's talk page, there seems to be a question of whether this band's subgenre actually exists. In any case, the article seems to be mostly WP:OR and doesn't establish notability. No references exist. Looks like a delete to me. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Samantha Neville[edit]

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

    Both the actress and the event described appear to have only occurred in the creator's head - 0 Ghits, for example - but the article is being recreated as fast as it is deleted and, strictly speaking, "hoax" isn't a CSD criterion. So here it comes.➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a hoax/unsourced cruft. Also apply WP:SALT. Cquan (after the beep...) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unverified--needs WP:RS. JJL (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - tried to speedy in my inexperienced ways. Definitely non-notable. Cricketgirl (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - looks like nonsense to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It looks very much like this is false information.Paste (talk) 16:33, 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. Tikiwont 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3D Entertainment[edit]

    3D Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This was speedy deleted before, and while it looks a lot nicer, it's still blatant WP:SPAM. Dougie WII (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete the article and all the images. They are contributed by Benjfilms (talk · contribs) who has no other contribs and a likely conflict of interest. This supports the suggestion of spam. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article violates neutral point of view, and reads like an advertisement. Chri$topher


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Compressive Rock[edit]

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

    Made up genre of music. The only hit on google is this article. All other hits are about geology. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless the magazines start writing about compressive rock before this AfD finishes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Everyone's gotta make up their own genre... Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's insane I just spent 4 hours going through everything listed in list of rock genres, amazingly this is the only I found that was totally made up. However out of the dozens of pages there are maybe 5 that are well written and sourced. I plan on doing some major editing to industrial rock. What really bothers me is that there is a wikipedia project for music genres and they seem not at all concerned that most of the articles in the project are trash. Ridernyc (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was the only made up one in the list. Anyway, thanks for going through that, and I know what you mean about the WikiProject and the state of the articles. It is one of the harder areas to work in, though. Rocket000 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and I know, I'm the person who took on cleaning up concept album. I would just like to see more projects be like the Tolkein project group, realize you have a ton of issues with the articles you already have so stop everything and just clean and merge everything. Ridernyc (talk) 01:23, 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 per BIO & SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leah Herz[edit]

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

    Creator contested prod. Only claim of notability competing in the "Blue Team" of a reality show. The notability claim makes A7 unaplicable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. She doesn't appear to have gained any particular critical attention for her part in this series, and I couldn't find any independent nontrivial sources discussing her in any way that would verify her notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete famous for 10 minutes, non-notable Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete couldn't get much more non-notable. RMHED (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I apologize sincerely, but I'm not used to the policies of Wikipedia. I added a link to a site that lists the cast of Scaredy Camp (including Leah) and I hope that's a step to making this articl legitimate. (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete A7. Pretty uncontroversial. From above (now blocked) user's edit summary "I will edit this article to make it more suitable for wikipedia's purposes. I know Leah personally from school and can assure you that all of the information provi..." Rocket000 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Users blockstatus is irrelevant for the AfD discussion. I understand you want to use it as an argument, but it really doesn't have much to do with this discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      um.. no. Did I say that's why it should be deleted? Rocket000 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I'm bad at coming out of my words at the moment for some reason. That was in no way meant as an attack or anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      lol. It's cool. The only reason I mention the user was blocked is because he/she commented above me (the one with just the talk page link). I figured it would be good to know if someone was going to reply to them. (EDIT: By the way, it doesn't apply in this case, but user's blockstatus is relevant in some deletion cases → CSD G5) Rocket000 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      G5 is about banned users, not blocked users Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      One and the same. Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ok, I'm done :) Rocket000 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The two "sources" (naked URLs in the article) given are tv.com, which is not a reliable source, and I was unable to find a single source about this person not related to this small appearance in the Nickelodeon show. Ariel♥Gold 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Individual pretty clearly falls short of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 talk 00:55, 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. DS (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Astra serpent plant[edit]

    Apparent hoax. No Google hits for "Astra serpent plant" or the binomial "Phalaenopsis sirtalis" (which seems to have been constructed by combining the genus name of an orchid with the species name of the common garter snake). If this plant were real, there would be material about it all over the Web. Deor (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete hoax as above. Also not found in Carnivorous plants database. Xymmax (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A most entertaining hoax. :-) Bits of fact intermixed with complete fiction. Too bad the author isn't working on something useful. Tim Ross·talk 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snowball delete as an obvious but mildly amusing hoax. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 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 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh[edit]

    Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Incomplete nomination by 86.146.198.25 (talk · contribs). S/he writes on talk page: "The person in this article is not famous at all, nothing interesting about his achievements; he is a nothing more than a common person living in a Jordanian village". Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete He gets 10 hits on google, several of which are due to this article. No hits on google books, news, or blog search. Not even a UN bio. Wait till he moves up the ranks ; ) Joshdboz (talk) 12:52, 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) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The google hits (12 when you add "-wiki") indicate that he actually lives in Egypt, so the nominator might have him mixed up with somebody else. All the information is accurate, and his activities laudable, but it doesn't add up to 'notability'. Given that the page was created by User:Aljawaldeh it also looks like there's a COI issue. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unsourced bio, even if true he's still pretty non-notable. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ta'a Chume[edit]

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

    No assertion of real-world notability. Article is entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 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) 21:32, 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. Pigman☿ 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Active pause system[edit]

    Active pause system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a neologism. I can't see this expanding much beyond a dictionary definition. Pagrashtak 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep It's more than a dicdef now. It's adequately referenced. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, after the removal of unreliable sources. A random quote in an internet forum in not an appropriate "praise" section. Pagrashtak 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was also a criticism section. The praise section was to keep it NPOV. Jecowa (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: This article can't really go anywhere. Plus, can citing sources saying that some random games have this feature really demonstrate any encyclopaedic treatment? Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I'm inclined to agree. Any mention and explanation of this feature should be in articles relating to games that use it, but only then if the use of the feature in those game is notable. As Pagrashtak said, I can't see this going anywhere further than a dictionary definition. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Doesn't seem to be an article at all. Its just a definition with random games so a person would think the article is reliable. 1yodsyo1 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • What is this? Are you a psychic? Are you telling me that you know for a fact that I referenced articles mentioning games with an active pause feature in an attempt to somehow decieve you? Please assume good faith! The references for these games only serve the purpose of providing easy access to additional sources to verify that these games indeed have this feature. Jecowa 07:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While a definition article doesn't inherently need deletion (they can often be expanded well beyond that), in this case, it seems like there's nothing more to it. Furthermore, I'm not convinced this isn't just a term the creator made up -- at the least, the one weblink doesn't specifically call it an "active time system", which makes me doubtful the others do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not very nice. I don't like being accused of making things up. I did not make that word up. I read it in an article and did not know what it meant, so I tried to look it up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't have an article on it, so I searched the internet for explanations, and I typed what I found out at this article. The first reference mentions "active pause mode," although not "active pause system" as this article is titled. I was thinking about moving this to "active pause," but thought that would not be a good thing to do while a AfD is in progress, but maybe I should have. Jecowa (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's accusing you of having made up the term; rather, the term was created for a single game and hasn't been used by anyone since. It was made up for that game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was made up for which game? There are references to the term "active pause" being used for four seperate games. Jecowa (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which brings up an interesting point about print references. They are allowed of course, but it's also easier to use them when it's not really true. Anyone reading this have any of those mags, and can check? I'm not by a long shot calling you a liar or anything, but it still seems a bit ORish as it stands now. If nothing else, it's still basically a definition and nothing more, as it stands now. EDIT: Yeah oops, I was misreading those as print refs. Sigh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can check them all yourself. The links are all on the article. Here's them for you again if you are having trouble with the reference section.
    Jecowa 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are some more articles which discuss the topic: [9][10][11][12]. I'm not sure how reliable the second site is. Also, the last two links are interviews with developers. I believe the WPVG:Sources article says that dev talk is OK as long as they're talking about their own game. SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with hypothetical article discussing Real-time game—specifically the term "Real-time with pause", which is the same thing as "Active pause", but more notable/commonly used (see here). Personally, I think the concept is notable, even if the actual term used for it isn't. I think it's notable just for the controversy surrounding it; e.g., many games that use this system are frequently called "turn-based", when in fact they aren't (see here, here, here, here, here) SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is also the "smart pause" system which is a (supposedly) advanced version of real-time with pause used in Brigade E5: New Jagged Union (see here). SharkD 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per adding of sources as noted above. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 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. Davewild 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry Solomon[edit]

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

    This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge & Delete Redirect as it stands the article fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unfortunately we've been so busy fighting the vandalism of TTN that we have not had the time nor the opportunity to improve articles. This character was one of the main character four characters in the sitcom. The sitcom revolved around the main characters Dick, Sally, Tommy, and Harry. To say he is non notable is to say Kramer or George were not notable in Seinfeld. I was in the process of an improvement drive for the articles in 3rd Rock from the Sun, however have been side tracked defending the article(s) because of TTN's self imposed we must immediately delete all TV episodes in Wikipedia. This article can and will be developed/improved given time without having to fight TTN's vandal edits. --Maniwar (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just a ridiculous argument. Delete per WP:FICT. Real world notability must be asserted. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eusebeus 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have a response to my comments below? Real-world information does exist. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Real-world information does exist, which shouldn't be surprising, considering this was a major character on a long-running sitcom. Here's some stuff I found on Newsbank that provides behind-the-scenes info or reactions to the character:
    • "SPACE CASE: TO 3RD ROCK'S FRENCH STEWART, STARDOM IS AN ALIEN CONCEPT". People Weekly. 13 May 1996.
    • Sharon Rainsbury. "Simply French". Sydney Herald Sun. 9 July 2000.
    • James Endrst. "CLUELESS, HAPLESS HARRY IS `ROCK' SOLID SENSATION". The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal. 2 January 1998.
    • Alan Sepinwall. "French twist: `3rd Rock' has Stewart on a roll". The (Newark) Star-Ledger. 19 November 1997.
    • Ian Spelling. "`ROCK'S' SOLOMON MADE A FACE THAT'S STUCK". Chicago Tribune. 16 January 1997. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do any of those actually go in-depth or is is just a bunch of little bits like the one that you added? That kind of information belongs either on a character list or a general casting section for the main article, rather than a character article. Characters need real meat in order to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they provide a decent amount of info. If you look at the titles, you'll see that two of them are primarily about the Harry character. I just haven't had time to add everything I could. And I'm sure there's other content available in the DVD extras. Zagalejo^^^ 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a little bit more. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Zagalejo. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep major character in a major prime time series with reliable and verifiable sources to establish real-world notability. Alansohn 05:51, 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 Speedy delete under CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. James086Talk | Email 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Twin Disc[edit]

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

    Orphaned, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete No assertion of notability, only external links, no wp:rs. Pharmboy (talk) 20:22, 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 withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    God is Dead[edit]

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

    Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Caesura(t) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Could you elaborate which points? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — Based just on what is written in the article, I'd have to say all of them. There are no sources cited, no awards listed, no evidence that it is used in schools or that it has a movie adaptation, and I don't recognize the author. Nothing about the current article screams out that this is a notable work. So, personally, I can't really support a keep at this point. — RJH (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep plenty of references available, book is even on CD at independents. Article needs work, not deletion. Author meets BIO, book meets NOTABILITY. Pharmboy (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The page about the book under discussion really needs to make some kind of acknowledgment of the page "God is dead", the better known announcement by Friedrich Nietzsche as seen in Time magazine. Most people who search for this are likely looking for Nietzsche's revelation rather than this book. If this content is deleted, the page should redirect there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO WP:BK, his book has been reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle here,and the Guardian here. I also found reference to a review that appeared in the LA Times in July 2007, but its no longer available for free. (BTW, I entered the identical text on the Afd for the author). Xymmax (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As I still haven't heard which parts of Wikipedia:Notability (books) it supposedly fails. Caesura, maybe it's time to withdraw this AfD? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw nomination. Sorry, guess I didn't do my homework to ensure the work was non-notable. No point in waiting for this AfD to close. Lesson learned. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 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 to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian soft rock[edit]

    Christian soft rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:RS, so questionable whether this is a "real" genre. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Hours of fun for all the family. RMHED (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Quick googling (adding “-wiki” to the search) gives the term as a retail or marketing category here,

    here, and here; as a listings category here; there’s a “Christian soft rock station 104.7/The Fish”; the term is used in Maury Dean, Rock ‘n’ Roll Gold Rush (Algora 2003), ISBN 0875862071, p. 377: Pat Boone as a “Christian soft rock crooner” (found on google books); and there’s a rather unflattering reference in the Arkansas Times of Oct. 4, 2007: “after listening to a solid hour of contempo-Christian soft rock, we can tell you that — bar none — it is the crappiest music in the universe”. Also half a dozen peronal reviews on Amazon, and then I got fed up and stopped going through the hits (there were a few thousand). So it does seem to be a genre that people find useful, however suspect it might be in terms of taste. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with rock(music).IslaamMaged126 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:43, 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. Pigman☿ 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Christian music videos[edit]

    List of Christian music videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Irrelevant intersection, how exactly is a Christian music video special or what intrinsic noteworthiness does it have? And why should WP have a list of every music video? Furthermore a list is often a collection of articles, i.e. links, but this is just a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Christian video killed the Morning Star. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. More non-notable listcruft. Axl (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be careful to not use the "cruft" term. Its connotations of uselessness is insulting to fans of things. Cruft to you is golden to others. Royalbroil 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, certainly "Christian music videos" is a notable topic (a Google news archive search will confirm that); the bands and albums are certainly notable, even if the individual songs might not be; the list serves a useful navigational and informational purpose. DHowell (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Might warrant a category, doesn't warrant an article. A1octopus 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Don't Delete It! It's Great!! Helps when you don't know what videos bands have, come look them up and then youtube them :) JustMe
    • Delete - the list is too large to ever complete. There are very many Christian musicians who have no videos on this list. Where are BarlowGirl's videos for example? Right now the list contains a list videos from random artists. Artist's videos are best placed on their article only. Royalbroil 14:57, 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 to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian electronic music[edit]

    Christian electronic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    "Christian electronic music is Christian music which employs electronic music." Wow! Totally irrelevant intersection. Reads like a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. I prefer Hindu industrial music myself. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a term that appears to be in any sort of wide circulation. Might warrant a line in Contemporary Christian music but certainly not a whole article. Otherwise a rather dangerous precident is set that if any band of any genre happens to be of a particular religion then an article can pop up saying, eg Belgian Protestant (Lutheran) New Wave. A1octopus (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:43, 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 to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian bubblegum pop[edit]

    Christian bubblegum pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Another self-invented "genre" that fails WP:RS. Just someone who put two things together. Punkmorten (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Not a patch on Buddhist bubblegum bebop. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. DHowell (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:42, 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 to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian girl group[edit]

    Christian girl group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    How is this different from any girl group - someone just made up a combination - fails WP:RS. "Christian boy band" was prodded out of existance as early as last year. Punkmorten (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Anybody want to start a Zoroastrian girl group article?... anybody? RMHED (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As for the Zoroastrian girl group... I think I'd be more content with Buddhist monk death metal.--WaltCip (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no knowledge of the notability or otherwise of the phrase or the genre. I do think that the sort of imaginary examples being given are not a suitable way to discuss anything, if only because making fun of a subject is not an argument. DGG (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, along with the other subgenres, into Contemporary Christian music. And what DGG said. DHowell (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, along with other subgenres. This is a real subgenre. The term is occasionally used. Every subgenre of pop/Top 40 music has a corresponding subgenre in Contemporary Christian music (CCM). Right now the Contemporary Christian music article isn't very large, so merging in these small subgenres articles makes sense. I would change my opinion if the CCM article became larger. Royalbroil 14:41, 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—The statement which was taken as an admission of the list being arbitrary was placed by the first editor and reads "Because classifying music by genre can be arbitrary, these groupings are generalized and many artists appear on multiple lists." This does seem to be an admission of creating an arbitrary list. The suggested merger is not a doable proposition as that list article is a meta-list, a list-of-lists, and not an item-list which would support in-merger of an item-list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Christian R&B/soul artists[edit]

    List of Christian R&B/soul artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Self-admitted arbitrary list. Don't be fooled by the reference, as it has nothing to do with this specific subject, really. Punkmorten (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete oh good grief this is getting silly, who in Jehovah's name makes up this nonsense. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete - together with the many other "christian something" articles currently on AfD, a single article along the lines of "christian music" or such would be much better. --.Tom. (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into List of Christian bands and artists by genre. DHowell (talk) 06:33, 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 withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Currie Jr.[edit]

    Ron Currie Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:BIO. —Caesura(t) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Easy to find enough references, published author, book is registered and available. Meets BIO. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO, his book has been reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle here,and the Guardian here. I also found reference to a review that appeared in the LA Times in July 2007, but its no longer available for free. Xymmax (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw nomination per above. Sorry, guess I didn't do my homework. Lesson learned. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God is Dead, nominated concurrently with this and also withdrawn. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 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 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Characters in the Sims 2[edit]

    Characters in the Sims 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Simple fan cruft Pharmboy (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete list fancruft or fan listcruft, either way it fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Impossible to maintain. Simulator games cannot have "character lists."--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Walt, you don't know the Sims at all do you? these NPC's are fixed and they aren't archetypes - they are pretty much all there is. There are a couple not included (Drew Carey and a couple of other entertainers).Garrie 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have all of the expansion packs of Sims 1 and Sims 2. I download custom objects daily and I have armies and armies of families created from eons ago still waiting to be played. The NPC, Townie, and premade character list is so massive, that the article becomes a catch-22: too few invokes WP:OR, too many invokes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.--WaltCip (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable outside of the in-game universe.Garrie 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Non notable list of characters. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - one of my favorite games, but this is a completely non notable, game guide-like, list of characters. Knowitall (talk) 05:22, 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 Keep. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hive (Resident Evil)[edit]

    The Hive (Resident Evil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is not inherited, and you need to show its notable on its own to sustain its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost the entire film of Resident Evil is set in The Hive. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it appears in the game series, and is a major location in the films. The data needs clean up, however has been referenced in numerous video games including Outbreak, Umbrella Chronicles, and Resident Evil 4. Empty2005 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it needs to demonstrate actual referencing, like development and creation information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, there isn't much info known about construction and development as it was briefly mentioned in Apocalypse, however there is more info given out in the first film, which suggests that the facility was the HQ for finding out the T-Virus, and is also important as it is the origin of the outbreak in the film series, considering 3 films have been released, which reference the facility in all 3 films, with a sequel also planned. And the outbreak has also played a major role in Extinction, as a replica facility was recreated in Las Vegas, and also features almost the exact laser corridor sequence as the first movie. So this article has enough information regarding the facility, however if you feel like pestering and nominating articles for deletion, why not try, The Simpson House, considering not much is known about it's construction, or why not Arkham Asylum while your at it. Empty2005 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if following wikipedia guidelines is such a bother, but some people feel articles actually have to be good at some point to stay on wikipedia. And as you point out, nothing is known, so it has no hope of being improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge could arguably be a part of the Resident Evil article, but is definitely too noteable for deletion. --.Tom. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there is no valid argument for merge. Firstly, it has no primary sources to verify its content, so merger will just move this problem elsewhere. Secondly, it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow talk about aload of shit, why not place 742 Evergreen Terrace on afd?, it also has no sources to back up the content, and it pretty much uses plot points aswell! Yeah thats what i thought ! Empty2005 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Knowitall 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I can't see why you'd delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrx9898 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then read the nomination and discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, as far as I can see, the page has a fare amount of information. There are also various references. I'd say that you shouldn't delete the page and just clean it up. Mrx9898 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But if its not notable, what is there to save? How do you "clean up" an article that cannot be referenced? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is notable. It's the primary setting of the first resident evil film, and also features again in extinction. I think it's also referenced to in some of the games? even so, I think it's good enough to remain an article. If you wanted to merge it into the resident evil article then you could, but I think it would make it look sloppy, and long. Mrx9898 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the primary setting for an important game is notable. What is being challenged here? That it is an important game? that it is the primary setting? that a primary setting is notable? I was at first skeptical of some of the attempts to erase the distinction between primary and secondary sources, but if it is being used to create artificial barriers to articles on topics like these, I am glad to see that most of us are becoming more flexible. The nominations seems to be using the same arguments for both the notable and the les notable elements. That's against the core principle, that we are here to build an encyclopedia and the guidelines are intended to guide us, not to prevent common sense. DGG (talk) 03:36, 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. This is a Secret account 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service[edit]

    Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it is an organization from a notable game series played by millions of people internationally that has been made into three films also seen by millions of people. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    References, not "being in a movie" justify notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to get a lot of hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be mostly wikipedia mirrors, so not that impressive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The shear number is really impressive (admittedly, I didn't even expect that many hits). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL what's impressive? There is not one reference in the hits! :) Please be serious if you want to keep debating this articles notability, or any other for that matter. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the topic has attracted that much interest is impressive. Besides, why focus on deleting stuff people worked on rather than improving articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have an encyclopedia filled with trivia and junk? And besides, I know a lot of the people who help delete articles, and they are some of the most active people in building up articles, especially fiction ones. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that so many of our contributors are willing to volunteer time and effort to these articles suggest that a lot of our editors and readers do not regard them as "junk." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And when its gone, they will contribute to articles that actually improve the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, some may just be turned off from the project. Plus, in many's opinion these sorts of articles do improve the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:33, 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. Technically, consensus leaned to "keep". However, I found the delete arguments stronger in this case. Article is over 20 months old, does not have a single WP:RS or WP:V citation in the whole thing, and does not meet the guidelines of WP:FICT. While some participants said they would add citations, as of now, three days past the end date of this AfD, none had been added. If you think I've made a mistake in this decision, please take it to WP:DRV for consideration. Pigman☿ 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raccoon Police Department[edit]

    Raccoon Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not an assertion of notability for the police department, but only for the movies and the games, just because they are popular doesn't mean that this department is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If millions of people are familiar with it, then it is notable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sources, see this and also, please remember to maintain civility. I may strongly disagree with people, but I am not accusing them of "spouting nonsense." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of Google hits hardly qualifies as significant reliable sources. You are right, nonsense was entirely the wrong word to use, you are spouting irrelevancies. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're relevant in that they demonstrate considerable interest in the subject. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, here's another subject of considerable intereset.[14]. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to main article. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Merging this to the main article(s) would make it too long and unwieldy. This is clearly a sub-article of a notable subject and really shouldn't be judged as stringently as a main article. You shouldn't have to reinvent the WP:N wheel every single time an article splinters off because of length. Torc2 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't propose merging I, I'm propsing its deletion due to lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say merge if the main article wasn't already so long, but it is, and clearly trying to merge that much information into an already-lengthy would be harmful, so the vote is to keep it as a sub-article. I think the topic is clearly notable when viewed as a part of whole. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The article is notable, all it needs is referencing. I'm currently referencing Dynasty Warriors character articles because they relate to another project that I am involved in, but if this article isn't deleted I will add them when I have the time. Unless, of course, Judgesurreal777 would like to offer a hand. I firmly believe that people should at least attempt to better an article before trying to delete it entirely. Gamer Junkie 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Post them here and I will help, post a bunch of them and I will also withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    References will come from the game, just as the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article has been constructed. This is actually an FA, so I'm assuming they will suffice? Gamer Junkie 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No that wont suffice at all. As you can see in the Featured article you linked to, we need development commentary, design sketches, that kind of stuff, simply citing the game would show a lack of notability, which is the current issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictures are already in the article and the commentary referencing only applies to the section regarding character development, which isn't a part of this article, so how is that a valid reference? And this article is notable because you'll find none of this in the main context. Searching for R.P.D. and getting Resident Evil is akin to searching for Pontiac Firebird and being redirected to an article about cars. Gamer Junkie 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the lack of development and creation info is the whole point of this nomination, if it doesn't have that, it isn't notabile enough to have its own article, because notability says it will have that stuff. And I didn't suggest redirecting, I said was should delete it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16
    17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Who's to say that it can't be- or won't be- added later? If you delete it, it might simply be created again. I'm also becoming very tired of people applying parts of policy and guideline information that they agree with and simply ignoring what they don't. Notability also states that:
    • "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable."
    • "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."
    • "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
    Not only this, but guidelines are not policy. They're not absolutely compulsory and aren't set in stone, meaning there is no specific rule applying to the notability of any one article. I reiterate, the article needs to be improved. Deleting information is detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Gamer Junkie 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether policy or not, Wikipedia should not be an indescriminant collection of information, and this is just plot recitation without reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what you believe it to be, and allow me to emphasise what YOU believe it to be, there's nothing to say the article can't be improved with a little effort and time. It falls within notability and therefore the purpose of this nomination is null and void. Gamer Junkie 07:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you knew anything about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would realize that you have demonstrated no proof that this is in any way notable, and you need to in order to save the article. Read this WP:FICTION, and you will understand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no proof it has notability, unless you can establish it, there is no point to voting "keep". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 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 same old Wikipedia game. DS (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia game[edit]

    Lacks verifiability and notability. Already exists in the Wikipedia namespace, where it belongs. —Caesura(t) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - We don't need an article about something that's in Wikipedia namespace; that's like having an article on Criticisms of WP:NOT.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - If I was looking at Wikipedia for the first time, I would be really confused if I saw this article. Besides it doesn't even belong in the mainspace as specified above. RuneWiki777 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per CSD A9, "clone of Six Degrees of Wikipedia in article space". (I'm not adding a smiley, I did that already a few days ago. It's not funny this time... =( ) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, though it's mentioned in Wikipedia: space. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:39, 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.

    if it is that popular then people must want to find out about it, theres an article on critisisms of wikipedia, why not the wikipedia game, if this really is an encyclopedia, it need ALL information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakmadik (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Too late. Go to WP:DRV if you feel that this article can be salvaged.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to List of Resident Evil characters. Neil ☎ 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Trevor[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It has also been previously nominated for deletion two years ago and has not improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 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. Not by !votecounting, but by strength of arguments. The article provides no "non-fictional perspective", no "out-of-universe referencing", no reliable independent sources at all (an online in-universe game guide, a printed version of the same game guide, and a blog text). Fram (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talos (Resident Evil)[edit]

    Talos (Resident Evil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it is a character associated with one of the most successful survivor horror series in history and so thousands of readers will be interested in this verfiable material and will be willing to edit it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a great time to verify it by adding out of universe referencing to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the google search link below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See this for example and notice such headlines as "TALOS and its importance in Resident Evil canon". Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this article has no primary sources to verify its content, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article has been rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective, and the source Judgesurreal777 recommended has been added. The character is highly relevant to the backstory of a major franchise, and Wikipedia would be poorer for deleting the entry outright rather than allowing it to be improved upon further. Zyid (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have posted to the wrong AFD, i did not request any reference be added that I have seen. Also, I haven't seen the article improve yet either. Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, the reference wasn't your suggestion. Nonetheless it was added, and the entire article was in fact extensively rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact seems to suggest an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable character from a notable game series. Knowitall 10:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Where are the references? Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At the bottom of the page. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:FICTION, because those are not the kind of references the article needs, at least not the ONLY ones it needs. Judgesurreal777 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think the consensus here on acceptable sources for this sort of article is changing for the better, by which I mean the more flexible. what is being challenged? that the character is not notable in the game? DGG (talk) 03:31, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter (Resident Evil)[edit]

    Hunter (Resident Evil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, the point of the nomination is to assert WITH REFERENCES that this topic is notable, simply saying it is wont do. After all, Notability isn't inherited, so just because Resident Evil and the games are notable doesn't mean every monster in it deserves its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that millions of people in multiple countries are familiar with is inherently notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as inherited notability, all articles must assert individual notability. Just because Superman likes his new wallpaper, doesn't mean we can create Wallpaper(Superman) based off of his popularity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I would agree on not needing an article on Superman's wallpaper, but a character is not wallpaper. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but just like his wallpaper, this article needs to assert its notability to have an article on wikipedia and not, say, a fan wiki. We either need to show that it has creator commentary, design sketches, development information and that kind of stuff, or it shouldn't have its own artciel. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles does assert notability: "As a result, the Hunters have become one of the best-known creatures in the series." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But you will notice there are no references to that, or for anything else in the article for that matter. It comes down to having references or not; if there are, great, if not, delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that references should always be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no references in the link you posted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are. They even made a toy of the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:41, 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) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a character from Resident Evil be in a Futurama article? --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If if can't meet WP:FICT it's got no place here. Just because millions may be familiar with it, doesn't make it notable. Most people are familiar with scratching their arse, is that notable? RMHED (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone were to make a computer game out of it and sell a few million copies, and get it reviewed--which tends to go together--then yes it would be notable. I am not sure whether all this is a necessary part of the world, but it is part, and we should cover it, it as much detail as the material will support. DGG (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would not. Tell any extra in a movie with thousands of extras, being an extra in that movie, no matter how famous, doesn't make you famous or notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of interesting information here, but it would probably be better on a separate Resident Evil Wiki. I have to say delete. Chri$topher
    • Keep If its admitted to be interesting, and verifiable, and relevant to an important topic, its an appropriate article. V is a core principle, but the manner of V is secondary and just a flexible guideline. We are not making an encyclopedia to illustration the current state of N:Fiction, but making guidelines suitable for building an encyclopedia. the guideline can be what they need to be to acheive our purposes. DGG (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If "V" is a core principle, then this article fails miserably, since it has not one reference, and there isn't even a reference section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Winters[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie article. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably delete - I can't be certain without understanding the subject matter, but it looks like a plot summary without encyclopedic features or references. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:42, 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 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agent Bishop[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and episode articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 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 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-declared art movement[edit]

    Self-declared art movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Near orphan about a questionable "art movement"; unreferenced since September 2006. kingboyk (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Clubmarx (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. - Modernist (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I don't think there's anything here that isn't self-explanatory: "a self-declared art movement is an art movement that is self-declared". Then it (long-windedly) says that declaring an art movement might not mean anything at all, so this is basically unhelpful article. At best, this is Merge or Redirect material to Art movement; if there are sources to explain this dilemma of What Exactly Constitutes an Art Movement, by all means, explain it on the main article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:04, 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 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of HD DVD movies[edit]

    List of HD DVD movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Is this worth keeping around? If it's not even close to complete now, is there any hope of it ever being complete as the real list continues to grow. A similar list for Blue Ray disks has already been deleted. Rtphokie (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a potentially near endless list of no real use. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List with no purpose, Wikipedia is not a depository of indescriminate information. Pharmboy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This page really made me laugh. list of Hd dvd movies. Ah. That's good. I see no purpose in this article. If this article is kept, a lot of work will have to be completed in order to have a full list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete everything will be HDDVD in a few years, so it seems kind of pointless. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and the other comments made above. This will become unwieldy almost immediately. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - a category is far more apporitate for this Think outside the box 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And exactly how is this a defining characteristic for these movies? Vegaswikian 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment It would appear it isn't a defining characteristic of a movie, and instead a characteristic of the format it is sold in, which seems to support deletion instead of a category. At the risk of violating wp:beans, a category makes as much sense as List of computer models that have black cases. Pharmboy 00:16, 1 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. This is a Secret account 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of robots (TMNT)[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 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, has no reliable independent sources at all. Fram (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyrim[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was also nominated two years ago and has seen no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agree, no notabliity. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: When this article was nominated two years ago, the only votes were in favor of keeping it. Other articles in the Elder Scrolls series have withstood AfD with shakier grounds and much less content. -Senori (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't justify keeping it, especially since it has established no notability and has no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I do not know the game--I am just judging the article; there seems to be sufficient information beyond the small excerpt in Major_regions_of_The_Elder_Scrolls to justify an article in its own right. It isnt a game guide, because it doesnt seem enough of the kind of detail needed to play the game. If we don't waste time throwing good things out, we can write new articles on arguably more important things. DGG (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I promise we wont, because there is nothing "good" about the article in an encyclopedic way, as there is no evidence of notability. After all, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    nothing in fiction has literal real-world notability. Rather, it's notable because of a notable role in notable fiction, and because the fiction has the real world notability. that's the meaning of the guideline that contributes towards building the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. Zeus is fictional, yet has real-world notability. Yes, he appears in notable fiction, but the fictional concept itself also has real-world notability independent of that and has made an impact in real life. Your argument is that notability is inherited, which is not true. The Pearl is notable fiction, and Kino is a notable role within that notable fiction, but this not not automatically grant Kino real-world notability. Pagrashtak 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per DGG. I am less concerned about WP:RS if the article passes WP:FICT as notable, i.e., is a notable person/place/thing/concept in X fiction or game. I know that's not a strong argument, but it's a standard that independent sources are less important for fictional places and persons that for real places and BLP's. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true, it is crucial for fictional articles to be sourced independently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Don Festge"[edit]

    "Don Festge" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Vanity page fails to meet WP:BIO. Wrote a couple of unsuccessful screenplays, unknown books, and was an extra a couple of times. Only trivial coverage by secondary sources. —Caesura(t) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Agreed... I first tagged it as cleanup but after looking into this further, have found the same thing. Self writing a bio and linking to external sources that were self created definitely violates WP:BIO and a couple of other policies. --Pmedema (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete vanity article. RMHED (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unable to find any nontrivial sources. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, wikipedia is not a host for your curriculum vitae. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Reywas92Talk 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as vanity "biography" violating WP:BLP. Bearian 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -but the company was founded way back in 1998. Tiptopper 14:00, 1 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 Speedy Delete by DMacks. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Donna Fish[edit]

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

    I don't think she satisfies the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. An eating disorder expert, who has had a TV appearance as an expert for a show, published a book, for which she has had interviews in magazines, according to the article. (Better Homes and Gardens, USA Today, amongst others). Two radio appearances. No reliable sources. This is the best I could find in the first 60/245 Google hits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:13, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. non-admin closure SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Naitō Tadayuki[edit]

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

    Is this photographer notable? This short article has little more than weasel words. Rtphokie (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not so much weasel words as virtually no words. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Paularblaster's addition of practically everything. RMHED (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A year ago Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography#Hotlists was listing this as an article that was needed ... Now they seem to have someone has set up a bot to create automatic stubs of the 328 most famous Japanese photographers - he's one of them - and its running wild. Still, he's a Japanese photographer people will actually have heard of. To give perhaps the most accessible aspect of his work for us non-Japanese: Naito did the sleeve photography for several Miles Davis' albums, including the Pangaea_(album) (there's a specimen in the article). I've done a bit to flesh it out already, and I've given WikiProject History of Photography a nudge to sort themselves out. Paularblaster (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very reluctant to disagree publicly with Paularblaster, who has done an excellent job on this article, but the regular denizens/members (countable on your fingers) of "WP HoP" were as surprised as anyone to observe the sudden appearance of all these substubs. We plead innocence! -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies for the unfounded accusation. Paularblaster (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, fine. I raise my smaller glass of Orval to you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per vast improvements made by Paularblaster. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Yes, he's notable. Yes, Paularblaster has done a good job of showing this. Yes, he could be shown to be more notable. I'll do this myself, but the demands of the "real world" will delay my start. (A good-faith proposal by Rtphokie, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He is notable. Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, wow, great work Paularblaster, lots more useful information in this article now. Thanks for clearing the confusion up and improving the article. I think this discussion can be closed now.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 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 with a redirect to Numidia. — Scientizzle 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Numidium[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 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. Davewild 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Republic of Lomar[edit]

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

    Unreferenced, near orphan, of Lomar%22&btnG=Search only 800 Google hits. kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I found plenty of info from a wide variety of websites, even if it is not in the article. 800 ghits is meaningless and can't be used as a reason to delete. Many good articles have less ghits anyway, proving that ghits is a handy tool but not that handy. Being poorly cited is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. Easily meets notability. Pharmboy (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Widely reported in the international press in early 2000s. Subject of a Nigerian passport scam - also widely reported. The article needs cited sources and re-writing, but its certainly verifiable and has achieved a good degree international notability. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's notable let's get the article cleaned up and referenced, folks. --kingboyk 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first reaction was that this must be a hoax or something fictional. The organisation seems now to call itself the Regency of Lomar Foundation (according to linked websites). If so, Move. The present article remain as a Redirect, but that happens automatically on a move. Peterkingiron 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • question redirect to what? The article you linked was empty, so that doesn't really make sense to me. If anything, wouldn't we link the other way around? Unless there were some good cites otherwise. Pharmboy 22:04, 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 / Withdrawn by nominator SkierRMH (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Park Hee Byung[edit]

    Park Hee Byung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep Easily verifiable, easily meets notability. http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_7171426 clearly demonstrates this, and was on the first page of googling his name in quotes. Very notable. Also, articles don't have to qualify as "notable", only the person they are about. Pharmboy (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I added a second newspaper story about the same event, so now I believe it meets the minimum requirement of multiple reliable secondary sources. And I think it's an interesting story. But I'm unsure whether two local news pieces about the unveiling of a plaque in his memory are really enough, and I couldn't find anything more, neither under this name nor under Hee Byung Park. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While the news articles might put this past the notability guideline, I don't think they prove it's more than a simple news item. But my reservations there would be quelled by a single non-local news story (or other coverage). I searched myself but was unable to find anything new. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems notable, given that South Korea's Ministry of Patriots' and Veterans' Affairs has noticed him [15]. cab (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.. Seems quite a bit has occured on the page, for the better! in light of David Eppstein and CaliforniaAliBaba edits, I move to withdraw, appears WP:NOTABILITY has been met.--Hu12 (talk) 03:28, 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 deleted. WP:SNOW CSD A7 and the fact that the author himself is blanking it. Someone is upset and there's no point in prolonging the agony. Docg 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regis Silva[edit]

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

    An interesting article, unclear to me whether notable or not.

    The article was created by

    apparently the bio subject, comprising a self-bio licensed under GFDL. Most of this was "puff", but there did seem to be relevant claims in it that were by their nature verifiable. These included the following statements and claims:

    • "First solo exhibition at the Pacific Grove Arts Center, 2005, with feature-length pieces in both The Monterey Herald's Go! Magazine and the Monterey County Weekly."
    • "Other exhibitions at San Francisco's Blue Room Gallery, the Muckenthaler Cultural Center, the Pajaro Valley Art Center Gallery , and the Day of the Dead Celebration at the Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz."

    There is an AFD principle that an article on a genuinely notable subject should not be deleted just because it was created as a promotion piece. The above are borderline claims, and made promotionally. Nonetheless if verified there would be a legitimate question whether multiple exhibitions and coverage constitutes sufficient evidence that this is not a "run of the mill" artist. That evidence is not presented (yet); nor (if it was) would I be expert enough to assess these claims in the art world. Hence this AFD listing to examine those questions.

    Other relevant Wikipedia policies and practices:

    1. Brief mentions in the media may not be evidence of notability; Wikipedia looks at long term historic notability.
    1. Media that cover a subject (ie, person or other topic) may not be good evidence of that subject's notability, if they are themselves indiscriminative, or small scale and local, and so on. (For example a magazine in a town of 500 people will give coverage to very minor events that do not indicate the events are notable, and a magazine with a "popular culture" section must find some elements of popular culture to write about each issue whether or not these are discriminatingly chosen).

    Left to discussion to test evidence, and claims, and judge notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Delete Not yet shown to be notable.
    • First of above, Googling "Pacific Grove Arts Center" 2005 "Regis Silva" gives two non-Wiki hits from the same source, an article written by "Kai Laiolo" a week ago, who according to Google, has written precisely nothing else.
    • Second of above, Googling most of these venues + "Regis Silva" produces similar results.
    • Most sites obtained by Googling "Regis Silva" seem to be mostly promotional sites, these which aren't do not satisfy "long term historic notability", certainly not going back beyond 2005. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keepdelete. Here is an article in Brazzil Magazine which seems to go a long way towards establishing notability. I'm not really familiar with the art-scene though, so I can't really be a proper judge. Inpit from any editors more familiar with the subject would be helpful. henrik•talk 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Henrik's reference is the one I referred to under "First of above"; I don't regard it as a strong source given the efforts which appear to have been made to put Regis Silva's name just about anywhere it can be put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I noticed that later. I haven't been able to verify out how much of an WP:RS that magazine is, so I'm changing my mind, per the reasoning of others. henrik•talk 06:45, 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. --Oxymoron83 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pantheons of Tamriel[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 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. If you wish to pursue the merge discussion, please do so at the talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls)[edit]

    Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Could it be shortend and moved into Elder Scrolls? Just a thought. --Pmedema (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge to Elder Scrolls Characters: I feel that all the ES Characters collectively are notable enough to get a single page. -Ratwar (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree to merge, but that seems like a complicated task. Any volunteers want to mop up this mess? Bearian (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How can you merge if there are no verifiable sources to cite? The only sources for the content of this article are the orginal editors. If they can't fix this article, I doubt you can. Delete and start from scratch, but merging this article is just moving the problems of uncited sources elsewhere. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge Sources can be added in spite of Gavin's doubts. :) Also, while there is some in-universe content in this article, it also contains real world context. Rray (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Notification of this discussion has been added to the talk page for WikiProject The Elder Scrolls. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of christian ska bands[edit]

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

    Despite the references, this is a problematic list. It's incomplete and may not be able to satisfy a proper standard of notability. Weak delete, but I think it's good to discuss this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:59, 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 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DominKnow Inc.[edit]

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

    Someone marked this for speedy deletion (A7) on Newpages patrol. Since I disagree, I'm nominating it for deletion as a procedural courtesy. No opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Should be speedy as there is insufficient claim of serious notability. Three out of four references go back to the corporate website. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete no serious claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy: as Vanispamcruftisment. Andante1980 (talk) 09:34, 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 keep without consensus. Another Afd nom might be fair if done after three more months, if no further sources of any kind are found. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mushroom (Mario)[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Perhaps the mushroom is iconic enough to be culturally notable; if so, that can be included in Mario (series). However, we do not need and should not have an article describing the gameplay effects of absolutely every incarnation of the Mario mushroom. Chardish (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge relevant information to Mario (series). I agree that the Mushroom is iconic of the Mario series (nearly every Mario game has a mushroom in it), but this is indiscriminate information that could easily be hacked down to a few sentences in the main Mario article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually like this article. I found it entertaining and well written. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete per guidelines cited above. Keeper | 76 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. Just like characters of the series. Actually the mushroom appears also outside of the Mario (series), so I don't think a merge would be good. And just like the nominator says, it's iconic. There's plenty of non-videogame info. that can be said. The article does need some work to make it less guide-like, though. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the problems I see, and perhaps you agree, is that while the Mushroom is "iconic" (to use others' words), I don't see how it could become a verifiable article. How would you source this article with independent sources (as opposed to in-universe)? That isn't meant as a challenge, per say, to you Rocket000, specifically, more of a general question. I've tried to find articles/Ghits,/whatever in regards to (specifically) the notability of the mushroom in Marioworld and have come up empty. I don't see how this would ever reach the appropriate level of sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and What Wikipedia isn't. Keeper | 76 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy, else merge - to the article's creator's userpage or to whomever is currently maintaining the article. This has the potential to become notable and well-sourced, and can probably be modified to be less discriminate.--WaltCip (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A major element of a huge number of clearly notable games. Keeper76, it can certainly become a verifiable article -- primary sources (the games themselves and their instructions) are perfectly valid for verifying the content. What you're concerned about appears to be notability -- independent sources are required for that part. Given the long history of the Mushroom Kingdom, I'm pretty sure such sources can be found, though it may take some searching. Pinball22 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and no, Pinball22. I have played many versions of Mario (as I suspect most Wikipedians have also) and I know what the mushrooms are and that they are a notable, iconic part of Marioworld.. I will say though, I've never heard reference to Mushroom Kingdom, that's a new term to me. The games themselves and their instructions are not necessarily valid for verifying the content, as in they are in-universe and therefore not independent of the subject. What I mean by verifiable is exactly that. Do you know of any sources that speak specifically about the mushrooms and their impact? (and not just about Marioworld?). Keeper | 76 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Verifiable", how it's normally used (see WP:V), simply means the information is published by a reliable source and others can check (references) to make sure it's accurate. I'm pretty sure Nintendo is a credible source. Rocket000 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And that's the problem. Nintendo isn't sourced here, and unless "Nintendo" (and I assume you mean gaming magazines in general--correct me if I'm wrong) wrote an article devoted to the cultural/gaming significance of the Mushroom from Mario Brothers, then I don't see how this article will ever meet verifiability guidelines. This article is a guide to what different mushrooms do in different versions of Mario. How can that be notable/verifiable outside of MarioWorld? I'm not disputing the importance of the mushroom in Marioworld. I'm saying it (the mushroom) isn't verifiable/iconic/written about in independent sources. (Mario is, MarioBros is, Mario (series) is. But the mushroom isn't. That's what I'm trying to get at. Keeper | 76 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure. I think we're just arguing semantics here. For example:
    I write "mushrooms make Mario big." I reference a Super Mario game. You can check the game to see if what I said is true. That's verifiability. (Though I wouldn't necessarily cite this fact because it's common knowledge. According to WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.")
    I write "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world." I cite The New York Times. That's notability. -Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I didn't mean "gaming magazines in general", I meant Nintendo itself (the games, the guides that come with them, Nintendo Power magazine, ect.). Nintendo establishes verifiability. Other (third-party) gaming magazines would establish notability. Rocket000 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we are trying to say the same thing (semantics). I completely understand what you mean by verifiability now (and yes, I can play the game to see that Mario gets bigger when he "eats" a mushroom). What's interesting to me is your pseudo-quote: "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world" and then say "New York Times". That's exactly my point. In my opinion (which is what AfD's are all about, really), is that because the New York Times, the LA times, the Daily News, or USA today, or anybody outside Nintendo, have never specifically written about the mushrooms in Marioworld It proves that they, in and of themselves, are not notable outside the in-universe notability. Hence, they don't need there own article, but merely a sidenote in the article about the Mario brothers and Marioworld. Also, thank you for your clarificatin of my assumption about what you meant in regards to "nintendo." "nintendo, meaning the game, the magazine, the user guides (what you cite) do not, IMO, "establish verifiability" because they are "in-universive". Again, Mario is notable. The Mario empire is notable. The mushrooms are part of that universe and should be stated as such, but not as their own independent article. Sidenote, thank you for your civility in this discussion. It is much appreciated! Keeper | 76 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the problem in this conversation is that you're confusing the Wikipedia definitions of verifiability and notability. Independent sources are needed for the latter, but not for the former. Yes, an article has to be both, and so independent sources are needed, but the facts of the article can be verified by non-independent reliable sources. Pinball22 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent sources establish the notability of the topic. Once a topic's notability is established, primary sources can be used to support the article and are considered verifiable, but independent sources should be used whenever possible to maintain neutrality and to avoid original research. - Chardish (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Mario (series) article and merge relevant content to that article. A list of the mushrooms in Mario games and their uses is simply game guide content at best. Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • again, I don't know the game, but WP NOT does not say " Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content." The actual statement in NOT is that " a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." There will obviously be a considerable overlap in content. Whether this article predominantly is in the manner of a game guide is the question, not whether some of the content would also be appropriate as part of the information in a game guide DGG (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should also look at the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for dumping in-universe information. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. I don't see how descriptions of gameplay effects of a powerup satisfy any of these. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per User:Rocket000. I agree. An important aspect of the Mario series, and known outside of it as well. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Known outside the series" - that is a claim that must be backed up by sources. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a notable aspect of arguably one of the two or three most notable game series in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, if you're going to claim that, you need sources. Declaring that something is notable is not good enough. - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Rocket000. Knowitall 06:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per someone who made a claim not verified by sources? - Chardish 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep there must be dozens upon dozens of third party sources available on the subject, namely gaming magazines. RFerreira 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So find some. And remember, we're looking for sources that establish the cultural notability of this topic. - Chardish 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge - We desperately need to create a "Universe of the Mario Brothers series" article to put this and Mushroom Kingdom into. Judgesurreal777 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The Mario mushroom has begotten more than an in game importance in pop culture symbolism. An article on its own is justified from that alone. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Lord Metroid.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:38, 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 Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A.O. Smith[edit]

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

    Claims 130+ years of history and 10 million+ water heaters sold... so there might be some notability here. This was a speedy deletion candidate but I am bringing it to AFD for discussion. It feels like a copyvio but I can't tell of what. Needs some sources, otherwise delete W.marsh 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep looks to easily pass WP:CORP, just have a look at their stock statistics, with more than two BILLION dollars in revenue last year alone. Sources aplenty. The article could use a little NPOV help though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - You say "sources aplenty" - but from what I can see, there is only one and that is this. — Rudget contributions 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      From a quick glance at this I count more than a dozen major news stories in the last month alone, from major news sources like Reuters, Bloomberg, CNNMoney, MSN Money, and others. Google also shows 16,000 news articles (going back to the 1920s!) and nearly a thousand Books sources. The article has problems, yes, but lack of available reliable sources is absolutely NOT among them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw my nomination based on Starblind's links... sorry. Someone can close this AFD unless there's an objection. --W.marsh 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would I be able to close or not? - I think I've participated because of the comment. — Rudget contributions 18:00, 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. Pigman☿ 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Idiots of ants[edit]

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

    Delete NN comedy group Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not notable at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I wrote this page after finding Pappy's fun Club ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy%27s_Fun_Club ) ,another UK sketch group at a similiar level, but not finding an Idiots of Ants page. Both are up and coming acts so it seems strange that Pappy's Fun Club would be OK and Idiots of Ants not. I am a fan so was extra careful not to publicise them in any way. But if I did I will remove it.

    Kind Regards,

    Cody

    • comment will nominate that for deletion as well Mayalld (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as per failing notability standards. Occurance of another article has added to this debate. Unfortunately (to creating user), it looks like both will be deleted. — Rudget contributions 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not as notable as Pappy's Fun Club and there is definitely a conflict of interest here. Deb (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that both these groups are ‘notably’ if not yet famous. At the Edinburgh Festival they were both big news selling out there venues every night. This means over 5000 people saw them. Add to that the gigs they have done in London and around the UK it must be over 10,000. Certainly not ‘Monty Python’ but a great start none the less.

    On top of this both groups have been reviewed and written about in the national press (only yesterday did I see Idiots of Ants the Metro Newspaper) and have both been and national Television and radio.

    They both have big internet followings (me amongst them) and think they would be a popular addition to Wikipedia

    ~~Cody~~

    Cody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codspy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • comment I am the author of the article and have made it a British Comedy stub. I hope this will help to improve its acceptability. Many of the other comedians on that list are of a similar level of notability and it would seem unfair to delete this article when the others have been accepted and read for some time.

    Thanks again,

    Codspy (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I entered Idiots of Ants into wikipedia having booked tickets to see them at their Pleasance gig in London at Christmas after having lapped them up at Edinburgh. We bought the tickets the day after seeing them on BBC2's Culture Show. Yet I find that they are nominated for deletion on here?! I cannot understand that. Who decides whether something has a right to be deleted? There are countless examples on Wikipedia of far less notable/successful/famous people/groups/events than the Idiots. Surely that is not the purpose of the volunteer editors on the site? To be arbiters of what is well-known or not? I consider myself cultured and well-read, but I wouldn't dream of stating what was worthy of public consumption on wikipedia on the basis of whether it had entered my sphere of experience or where it rated on my perceived 'fame-o-meter'.

    They are a comedy group in the public eye that are known by and have entertained as many people as many of the books, for example, that appear on this site. Those books claim their space, I assume, on the grounds that you could go into any bookstore and pick them up IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR THEM. The same argument exists to defend the Idiots of Ants. If you were looking to see them, you could find them, and the first place you should be able to look is here.

    The nomination for deletion is extraordinary and should be removed.

    Jessica McIntyne.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    LG CU500[edit]

    LG CU500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This product is not notable; too few substantial references other than reviews are available to support writing a sustainable encyclopedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep - The article itself isn't too bad, and there a few (maybe stretching it a bit) sources by which we could verify claims. I understand that there is few too many substantial references, but (never let be the one to do it) there are 1,900,000 hits for the search of this article. Keep? — Rudget contributions 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Google hits don't establish notability. The reason why is demonstrated by this phone itself; the vast majority of hits are either commercial links for the sale or rental of the phone, or capsule reviews. Both include little more than PR material. While Google might demonstrate popularity, or high-availability in a commercial market, it doesn't demonstrate notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence why I said - "never let me be the one to do it". I know "g-hits" doesn't establish notability, but it does usually indicate popularity and therefore a wide range of sources are available, and then it is reliable sourced. But currently, the article doesn't have them. — Rudget contributions 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep—sufficient references available; also of interest for being one of the first HSDPA phones available in the US market. Spacepotato (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sufficient references, article needs to be rewritten, but worth keeping. --ZeWrestler Talk 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Tim Q. Wells 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep agree as notable as any other phone --EJF 19:18, 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 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    War of the First Council[edit]

    War of the First Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:25, 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 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Revelation vii[edit]

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

    Appears to be a non-notable website for an equally non-notable fringe group. I opted to bring it to AFD rather than speedy due to the references, but even despite the two interview clips I can't see how the website is notable; a Google search turned up many irrelevant hits (mainly relating to the Bible or small bands), and there are no relevant Google News hits, either. Coredesat 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete But, AfD rather than speedy was a good decision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- not notable, although the web site was quite interesting I have to admit... :) Zerbey (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as web content A7, no indication of importance/significance. --MCB (talk) 22:46, 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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim[edit]

    Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete Article quotes no reliable sources to establish notability Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, albeit weakly. It is fairly obvious that the article's author is a newcomer here, and in the process of mastering the syntax for article creation. The author is apparently also directly interested in the religion in question, and needs to get a handle on neutral point of view: The church is in strong opposition to idol worshippers and forces of darkness; these evil forces are at all times rebuked and overcome . . Parts of the article are apparently referenced by unpublished interviews with church leaders, which poses verifiability issues.

      On the other hand, the article purports to describe a religious movement that has been around in one shape or form since the mid-1920s. This fact alone seems to make a fairly good prima facie case for notability. Apparently published sources and biographies of church leaders exist in Nigeria, and the article does seek to reference these as well; this literature may be a primary source, but it is a source. And. . . it is interesting reading.

      Generally, the fact that sources may be obscure or hard to find in Europe or North America is not grounds to delete anything. The article was created the same day it was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question - Is this the same as the "Cherubim and Seraphim Society" mentioned in the Aladura page? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Answer - It seems to be; the founder is mentioned on that page. Will add a link. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Sources are indeed not so easy to come by for the good reasons outlined above but there are enough books about the African churches on Googlebooks [16] [17] [18]
    to make it clear that this is a mainstream Christian denomination in West Africa, and a bit more Googling shows that it has enough standing to have hosted a number of major African synods and also has well-established branches in the UK and US. The questions of tone and points of English usage can be dealt with by sensible editing. This article should not have been nominated here so soon. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    and WP:BITE is always worth re-reading.HeartofaDog (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Just about to cite WP:BITE myself. Anyway, in a moment I'll be adding a list of respectable secondary references to the article in question, should anybody feel the call to tidy the article up. They establish notability, if nothing else comes of them. Paularblaster (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It seems that the great bulk of the text was directly copied from the church's own website. I've removed it for now, bearing in mind the possibility that the creator may have, or be able to obtain, permission to use it. What's left, with Paularblaster's addl refs, should in any case be enough for an OK small article, which I'll do myself in a few hours if no-one else wants to.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no intention to WP:BITE (and I haven't done anything that would constitute a bite), although I'm increasingly seeing this guideline trotted out and put ahead of policy. As far as I'm aware WP:BITE isn't about ignoring policy just because somebody is new (do we perhaps allow every newcomer to create three junk articles that we don't delete?). If a newcomer creates an article that ought to be deleted, and which cannot sensibly be moved to user space, it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It is not about "ignoring policy" or not deleting "junk articles", neither of which are being advocated here. People are throwing WP:BITE at you, not because you are trigger-happy and have nominated too early without doing any legwork, but because of the tone of your reply to the article's creator on its Talk page. If this is your normal approach to new editors, then you will be seeing WP:BITE mentioned a great deal - so you may as well take it on board now. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I fail to see any WP:BITE issues in my remark on the article talk page Mayalld (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten as a stub on the basis of the external links given - needs a lot more work, but should get it off the present reef.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep now that HeartofaDog's rewrite has solved the problems with the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on the basis of the references. A pretty good start for an articleDGG (talk) 11:06, 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 Merge and redirect to Deadeye Dick (band). Waggers (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Caleb Guillotte[edit]

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

    Delete as NN autobiography Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Not worth merging to the band article because it's unsourced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Deadeye Dick if any of the solo work can be properly sourced, Redirect if not. Deadeye Dick is notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and now I've got that New Age Girl song stuck in my head again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Deadeye Dick (band) per Starblind. Might be a keeper if the band's claim to notability were stronger. However, with no sourcing, a somewhat marginal claim to notability and plenty of room in the band article, merge/redirect is best.--Kubigula (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Deadeye Dick (band). The band is barely notable; it's singer without the band certainly is not.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and fix the sources. Easily passes WP:N. Members of notable bands are notable, an exception to the dictum that notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 500 Ghits [19], with an IMdB entry, charity work, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sources. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've done well to verify the information in the article, but these are all pretty trivial mentions. I still don't see a compelling argument for a separate article, and a merge seems like a better editorial decision. I did, however, strike my comment saying there were no sources :).--Kubigula (talk) 01:23, 7 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 - notability does not expire, and some sources have evidently been found. —Random832 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubble Up[edit]

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

    Apparently non-notable product. - Jehochman Talk 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I'm kinda surprised to see the article in such a poor state, but Bubble Up is an iconic brand with nearly a century of history (it was sold a full decade before 7-up) and which hit its peak in the 60s & 70s. Sources aren't going to be extremely easy to find as its acme was a quarter-century before the web took off, but they do exist example Chicago Tribune article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as per Starblind. I've searched Bubble Up, and it doesn't come up with much, but that doesn't mean it should based on that relevance. It supposedly notable per some literary sources I have, at least I think so. — Rudget contributions 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- as per above. I just did some newspaper archive searching, and came up with the following, from a 2004 Dallas Morning News article:
    "The Bubble-Up brand has been around since 1917, when Sweet Valley Products Co. of Sandusky, Ohio, started bottling a "non-alcoholic, non-cereal, maltless beverage" under that name. The familiar citrus Bubble-Up - "Kiss of Lemon-Kiss of Lime" - was popular by the 1930s, the golden age of soda pops. The brand had a brief moment of glory in the 1950s when it came out in a 16-ounce bottle, beating both Coke and Pepsi, who were battling it out in 12-ounce bottles.
    But the brand lost its fizz and all but vanished during the 1960s, according to soda pop guru Hamilton Rousseau, who owns Ifs Ands & Butts."

    I'll add the source(s) to the article. Also, fer cryin' out loud, it was just created today; give it a chance. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Too important to get rid of.Oh Snap (talk) 01:00, 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 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A Brief History of the Empire[edit]

    A Brief History of the Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fictional history books that use an overly generic name 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No real-world notability. Pagrashtak 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I didn't make this page. This must have been a while ago when my account was shared. Thank you for noticing this. Get rid of it. :: RatedR Leg of Lamb 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No notability, and discussed in a completely in-universe style Chri$topher


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinators[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 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; no consensus about where to merge. If anyone wants to merge it later, request a copy from me :) --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark Brotherhood[edit]

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

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides, this article was previously deleted and is no more notable now than it was then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Either delete it or the article arguably should be merged with either the Morrowind and/or Oblivion entries. Peter1968 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge The problem is that there are other articles on fictional factions in the Morrowind/Oblivion universe, which are also considered for deletion. My suggestion is to either keep, source and cleanup the article (there are similar articles on fictional factions from the Star Wars, Stark Trek, etc. universe) or merge all faction articles in a strongly reduced form into one article called "Factions of Morrowind/Tamriel", for example. I've set up a page in my userspace where I'll work on the merged content today, you can find it here. mensch • t 11:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While your at it, please look for references and development material, such as where did the developers of the game come up with these things? That is crucial to the articles long term survival. Judgesurreal777 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Compared to some of the articles that enjoy life on Wikipedia, this one is fairly notable. I admit there might be a need to cleanup the article or make it clear that this is fiction but nothing that warrants the deletion of a fairly long, detailed article. Merging doesn't appear to be an option since the oblivion article is full and doesn't need anymore fat to reduce it's quality. Another possible option would be to create a large page for all of Oblivion's factions but unless someone is willing to do so I think this article should stay. There are worse offenders of notability such as the hundreds of pages devoted to Star Wars Extended Universe, a lot of messy articles like that all over this site. I don't consider this article terrible and it contributes to the reader's knowledge of the subject matter. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But why would we keep this article because its less terrible than other articles? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I'm saying this isn't near bottom barrel(worthy of deletion) in terms of articles. It basically has one massive flaw, no references, which I admit is a problem, even though this information is on the level. This article shouldn't be deleted, it should be fixed, we shouldn't just quit on it. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless it has references somewhere, I'm afriad it is a fatal flaw. The contention is that it doesn't have references now, it is that there aren't any references in existence, at least not in the form needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that was what I was getting at. Imperial-library.com is an excellent source of information, as in everything in the article could be sourced. Anybody with the time and skill could throw in a couple sources, the lazy choice would be to delete this article, the wise choice would be to add sources, and maybe make the article less in-universe.TostitosAreGross (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:FICTION, because those references you mention are not the ones needed to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 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 speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    D'Gallia[edit]

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

    nn (~750 ghits), written by someone affiliated with it:

    Today, the Culinary Institute with the Peruvian youths' of highest acceptance, to collaborate with the diffusion of our kitchen and to continue contributing to the development of successful professionals that you highlight in the gastronomic business and they are developed in a successful way in any part of the world.Thank you for your kind preference.

    (emphasis mine)

    nn, or, coi/npov. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete - it's a copyvio, so I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 16:08, 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 No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruenor Battlehammer[edit]

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

    Non-notable fictional character. Insufficient third-party references exist to write a substantial, verifiable, and maintainable WikiPedia article. {{prod}} removed without comment, so listing at AfD.Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete D&D cruft. Article is entirely in-universe, sole source from www.wizards.com is not independent of the subject (D&D publisher's website). No claim of notability, and no encyclopedic treatment from the persective of this unverse. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or at least Redirect to Companions of the Hall; notable Forgotten Realms character that has been a main character in a number of novels. BOZ (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — Bruenor is a major character who has appeared in multiple notable fiction works by a notable author. — RJH (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Still fails WP:FICT though, unless you care to add the appropriate sources that show otherwise. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep if you can provide a secondary reliable sources demonstrating extensive coverage in non-"in-universe" contexts. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added several independent sources. The remainder, I think, should be referenced directly out of the novels. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Entreri, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms) and a host of other places. Current consensus on Wikipedia, upheld in countless AfDs, is that major characters (esp. the main characters) of tremendously notable works, which is exactly what we have here, are presumed notable per the "common sense" clause in the WP:N and WP:FICT guidelines - multiple, independent, secondary sources are simply one way of drawing that conclusion. All this harping on WP:N entirely ignores the need for actual consideration of the scope of the works under discussion. Two or three nominators with a decided agenda consistently nominate the very articles that would best exemplify the need for looking at the big picture instead of wiki-lawyering, and then hold that the ones !voting "keep" and "merge" are ignoring policy. I believe it's exactly the other way around, and the community at large seems to be in tune with that concept. ◄Zahakiel► 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Sounds like this boils down to "other stuff exists". There are many articles that don't meet WP:FICT which have been deleted by the same user consensus you cite here. Wikipedia is not a game guide, by the way. The consensus isn't upheld in AfDs, either; articles are kept when there is no consensus that they be kept, which is part of the reason that so much of this cruft exists. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - What this boils down to is that you might benefit greatly from understanding the difference between WP:WAX and WP:CONSENSUS. There IS a difference; one of which is that the latter is an actual policy on this site. In terms of the content of these two elements of our discussion (as I said in my previous chat with you about these matters) it's one thing to say, "Keep simply because article X exists," and quite another to say, "Keep, because the reasons article X was kept are also applicable here." If you think that the pages I referenced were all - or mostly - retained through "no consensus" rather than "keep," then this points out the need for two things: a) Take an actual look at the pages I cite; you'll see a fair bit of straight keeps, and those that fall to "no consensus" do so only because of the tiny cadre of editors who always, invariably vote "delete" on this kind of material. b) If you aren't aware of the consensus for some bizzare reason, this might explain why you're so doggedly plowing through your AFD Queue with little reflection on your success rate on these specific types of articles. And yes, I am aware that sometimes the articles so nominated are deleted, but that's partly because, and I've read them, no one involved pointed out the error of obscuring the spirit of the WP:N guideline rather than it's (often) poorly-understood letter. One man's encyclopedic content is another man's "cruft"; that's exactly why the latter word is considered such bad form. While I'm on the subject, since someone made something of as snide comment to me in a previous AfD: I don't read these books, and I don't play these games (and I don't think "game guide" has anything to do with this topic anyway, since he's a main character in a novel simply based upon a game). I have no vested interested in making Wikipedia a "fansite," or a collection of trivial material. On the other hand, I'm aware of what the community has decided about these matters, and I can tell (unless the articles are lying, and my memory is foggy) that the topics you continually nominate sometimes very often notable. I'm not saying you have never nominated non-notable elements of fictional universes, but I tend to not vote on those AfDs, because, well... it's obvious that the community will take care of them anyway, and things are rarely helped by a pile-on (also, I don't want to actually encourage wanton AfDing even with the occasional "hit"). ◄Zahakiel► 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Question. Huh? What previous chat? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply - My apologies; it was in a previous AfD for which we both supplied comments, but that particular statement (the diff. between WAX and CONSENSUS) wasn't actually said in reply to you. ◄Zahakiel► 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Zahakiel, will you have my man-babies? BOZ (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (not a real marraige proposal, or pick-up line for that matter). ;)[reply]
    • Keep. Extremely notable. Anyways, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is an illegitimate guideline that most people do not even agree with.--Innerroads (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)— Innerroads (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet, see SSP[reply]
    • Keep - Per above --ZeWrestler Talk 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep RJH has added sources. Edward321 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Edward321. Rray 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this stub fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this stock character. Call him Thorhammer, Battlehammer or Wolfhammer, fictional characters like this have no real world notability other than he gets +15 attack points[20]. --Gavin Collins 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - That assessment is incorrect on at least three points; a) It is not a stub, for, from WP:STUB a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text... [...] Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing." b) A main character of a large number of hugely notable books cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered merely a stock character; it's obvious a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is coloring your vision here from the somewhat contemptuous tone you have employed. c) The notability guideline requires common sense in order to properly determine whether or not a character is presumed notable; it does not require the depth of sources you are culling from WP:FICT, particularly since a guideline can never trump a policy. If it seems I am repeating myself here, at least I'm not copying-and-pasting (yet). ◄Zahakiel► 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I understand you believe that, and this has been the fuel for this run of AfDs. I think it's a mostly valid viewoint, but at its heart it's incorrect, and this is why we disagree so often in these discussions. The statement that "Only reliable secondary sources can establish notability under WP Guidelines" is not only untrue, but insufficient in this (and almost every other) case of the discussions we've been involved with so far. In the first place, it is untrue because the guideline (WP:N for our purposes) uses independent, third-party sources as one means by which to presume notability. The claim is often made that the works in which these characters appear are insufficient because they are not "independent;" I don't buy that, because we find multiple authors contributing to a number of resources with no particular interest in furthering the salability of the specific objects/characters in question. We aren't talking about a product or a website, and at best the "independent" argument is a gray area. Further still, I consider it a rather silly argument in the case of WP:FICT, because fact-checking (the impetus behind the need for independence of source) is hardly an issue as the characters are defined within that written work itself. The more likely the claims are to be controversial, the more strictly the independent, third-party guideline needs to be applied (note the "occasional exception" and "common sense" clauses; it indicates that there are times when it need not be so rigidly applied as you're insisting - and the very articles for which you tend to recommend deletion are the ones for which these clauses were included). Making blanket statements about fictional characters is recognized in Wikipedia as being insufficient to delete (or even, often, merge) articles by more than the mere denizens of fandom, myself included.
    Secondly, it is insufficient not only historically (the low success rate of these AfDs that I've alluded to before) but policy-wise. I respect the guidelines as much as any other editor, but I realize that the reason these are not policies is because they are insufficient on their own to guide the criteria for deletion and inclusion. What we have here is your belief that this information is "marginal," and because it's not important to you, guidelines should be applied as policies, and policies (if they did exist, which they don't) should be used as a club to beat Wikipedia into the shape you believe it should take. That's basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I've said before. It looks like it conforms to the policies and guidelines, but that's more by coincidence than by design. Probably, some of these AfDs put up are going to succeed, but that seems at this point like it will be a luck of the draw based upon others who share your views, rather than the mounting consensus (a policy) that strengthens with every article of this type that is kept. As I said in more than one previous AfD, there comes a point when Notability may be safely presumed (without "harm" to Wikipedia) by common sense based upon widespread reader base, and various other elements that exist here. As far as the deletion nominations, we can keep doing this as long as you like, I suppose... but it is getting a little old. ◄Zahakiel► 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Has not established notability, which it must to be kept. Judgesurreal777 18:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Infantry Lua[edit]

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

    This seems to be about scripting some sort of game, but it's far more of a reference manual then an actual article. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and that includes a guide to scripting the game. — PyTom (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Random chunks of code, not sure exactly how to classify but breaks WP:NOT, probably under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Even if rewritten, subject appears to be non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is this still open? ([21]??) Should probably be relisted. Rocket000 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird. I tried using TW to list this, a long time ago. — PyTom (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete weird... I'm not totally sure if this is some sort of implementation of Lua (programming language) or something completely different. Either way, since there's no claim of notability I think it could be speedied, saving us the debate of which part of WP:NOT it fails. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as... well, I'm not sure exactly what this is, but it sure as heck isn't an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 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 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverbose Records[edit]

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

    Non-notable record label. No assertion that any of its artists are notable. I don't see anything here that meets WP:MUSIC. Most if not all Google hits seem to be self-generated advertisement. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles:

    Stepford Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    A New Design for Living (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    MESH (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Art of Self-Defense (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Dougie WII (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete All: Not much here for Reverbose Records other than simple mentioning's. As for the others, the band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, specifically this section. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:17, 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, W.marsh 15:34, 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. Comment: Despite quite a lot of back and forth and shifting consensus, comparison of the article from when it first came to this AfD and now [22] clearly shows a massively improved article. Pigman☿ 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayne Mansfield in popular culture[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - previous AFD closed no consensus and in the intervening months there has been no attempt whatsoever to address the problems. The article remains an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items which have no commonality beyond happening to include the words "Jayne Mansfield" in some capacity. There is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence. This does not mean that a list of every time someone says "Jayne Mansfield" on TV or in a book is encyclopedic. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a unifying element. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Songs that sing the praise of Mansfield, a book that has her as a character, a film character who plays her character... and a lots reference to the highlights of her life and career (i.e. breasts and the accident). Someone said Jayne Mansfield? Well, I didn't hear someone saying Otto4711 or Aditya as often in popular culture. Have you noticed that a lot of "In popular culture..." articles are laid out in list-form? Obviously, the binding factors are the subjects of those articles (check Absinthe in popular culture for an acute example). You would be very right if you said the article is very underdeveloped. Yes it is. People have not got around to developing it much. But, I am sure we are not going to delete all the stub and start class articles right away. Are we? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is anyone suggesting that all stub or start class articles be deleted? No? Then why bring that up when it has no relevance? As for a comparison to the absinthe article, the existence of that or any other article does not justify the existence of this article. Nor does the number of times any other person is referred to in popular culture. Untold numbers of Lists of songs about... have been deleted so that portion of the list is even more suspect. The point still stands that if the only thing that these things have in common is mentioning Jayne Mansfield's name then they bear absolutely no encyclopedic relationship to each other. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a fallacy to suggest that we should keep this article because Jayne Mansfield is mentioned more often in popular culture than two Wikipedia editors. Whether or not all the bulleted items in this article relate to a single object (JM, in this example) is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, they are still an unconnected list of random facts which meet the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selectively merge back into Jayne Mansfield, and preserve the rest of the information collected here on a subpage of the talk page (and make a link on Talk:Jayne Mansfield to let editors know it is there) for the future reference.

      As I see it, these things turn into lists because too many editors are intimidated from using their own brains by overbroad readings of WP:SYN. IMO it would be perfectly acceptable to add running text to the Jayne Mansfield article that uses this material. ("Jayne Mansfield's breasts were made the subject of humor in . . . . (citations to those appearances follow). Her death in an automobile accident is alluded to in a number of books and films, including. . . . (citations follow)"). Any guideline that pretends to prohibit analytical ways of dealing with the material is no guideline at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep for the same reasons I gave earlier this season. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    GRC, as that closed no consensus, some people still ned convincing, so so some further argument would be helpful. DGG (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per Smerdis of Tlön only what is currently sourced. Everything else could go to the talkpage pending sourcing and verification. I really see no good reason to split this out from the main article, but especially not in an poorly sourced and arranged list.--Isotope23 talk 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - no extra value found in this entry, better to merge it in Jayne Mansfield--NAHID 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep "One of the great american iconic sex figures, used as a symbol in a notable way. The suggestion to turn this into text is a good one, but it can and should be done in this very article, since there is enough content. sourcing is needed in any case, and equally should be possible--the requirement is sourceable, not sourced. First i ever heard of "added value" as a concept in notability. DGG (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her notability justifies an article about her. It does not justify a list of every time her name is mentioned in any medium. Otto4711 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Indiscriminate collection of unrelated facts? Indeed. Most, if not all, "In popular culture..." articles would be that, by the standard of the nomination here. The Absynthe article was just an example, if you want more you are obviously welcome to the category page. A category of articles may have one set of standards (if it doesn't disagree with core standards) which may not be measured by another categories standards. Will someone then try questioning the entire category instead of hitting on one particular article? The argument of deleting stub and start class articles came to question the reasoning that the article have not developed since the last nomination.
    "This article haven't developed fast enough" can't be a reason for deletion. If "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then the article needs to be developed, not deleted. It is a fallacy to start deleting articles on copywriting quality or format (list or prose). It also shows a not-good intention to find out a weak spot in another person's argument and using it to render that person's entire argument invalid. Though it is more preferable to have prose over lists, I really don't see how this list is of unconnected facts. Since this doesn't fail notability, or neutrality, and has the scope for appropriate verification. Please, read WP:NOT#INFO beyond the header, and find out that it holds nothing against this articles. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read WP:NOT#IINFO from the start all the way through to the end, so no need for your condescension, thanks. It is a list of unconnected facts because the mention of the two words "Jayne Mansfield" do not create an encyclopedic relationship between every two items in which the two words appear. Not really all that complicated of a concept, really. And you continue, speaking of reading comprehension, to respond as if the reason this article is up for deletion is because it hasn't "developed fast enough" when nothing like that has been said. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are suggesting that it should not contain stuff that quotes "Jayne" and "Mansfield" in succession? Songs and movies and books that explicitly makes reference to JM are random facts, and does not make for material enough to make an article? [[WP:NOT#IINFO explicitly explains what it means by "random information":
    1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions
    2. Descriptions of fictional works (not when they are the sole content of an article)
    3. Lyrics databases (the article may not consist solely of the lyrics)
    4. Statistics
    5. News reports (Routine news coverage... not sufficient basis for an article)
    Since, you have quoted the policy in your nomination, would you explain, please, which part the article fails? You have agreed yourself that "there is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence", then what makes it unworthy? Poor quality of the article? What? By the way, I have never said or implied "reading comprehension". I was just trying to find out what led you to a sesond nomination. May be it's not - "It haven't developed fast". But, it can't be "random facts" either. JM isn't random, her impact and memorability isn't random, making references to her isn't random, and acknowledging those references isn't random. What is? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're selectivity reading that policy and citing only the parts which you think support your argument. There has already been extensive discussion on what to do with "...in popular culture" articles and this one falls within the cycle mentioned in that essay. This material should never have been forked from Jayne Mansfield in the first place and certainly should never have been placed in a bulleted list and then abandoned by its creators.
    I think if you actually read the policies that have been cited in this nomination you will agree that this one fails all of them. Instead of continuing to debate whether or not this is true (and thereby prolonging this already lengthy and litiguous discussion) you can consent to have the article merged, retain the material and work on integrating it into Jayne Mansfield with proper citations. This would not only benefit the people in this discussion, but also the community at large and the readers of this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since, I presume, you have actually read the policy to arrive at the decision, as opposed to "selectively reading and citing", that "this one fails all of them", I hope you will be willing to forward some of the points that fail it. And, I am sure you have read through the link you've provided to describe my behavior is about the principle of policies. I hope you can tell me how agreeing to the fact that JM has enormous pop culture impact, and then quoting the same policy twice in the same sentence without making the point explicit keeps the principle high. The forking was done to keep the article size (already needing a bit of pruning) under control, which is the first suggestion of the other essay you quote.
    And, I really must draw your attention to a simple fact - this is not a merging discussion, it is a deletion discussion. Therefore, all my arguments are against deletion, not remotely against merging. Apart from driving up the article size, I have nothing against a merge, not even a selective merge. Finally, as this debate is really going against civility (I am already facing charges of prolonging the debate, being litigious and working against the benefit of the project and the community, to quote a few legal terms used here), I guess this is going to be my last post on this page. Go ahead, and have it your way. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment (I was asked to come here, so I think voting would be inappropriate) I've witnessed a few "in popular culture" AfD's and normally the ones which get deleted are the lists - the survivors (e.g. this one) are usually rewritten as prose. If you really want this to stay, it'll have to be converted to prose form to boost its chances. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep The article has essentially been completely rewritten by Aditya Kabir. Please check it out. The main thrust of my arguments in the last AfD, and in this one, is that the article was not/is not a collection of "trivia", rather it is a article (originally as a list, now in prose) of selected and related items that show Jayne's impact on current pop culture over two generations later, for example in the blockbuster TV show Seinfeld, in a graphic way that a simple statement cannot. In fact, sometimes lists are preferred. It was never an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items that happened to have her name attached to them. I believe that characterization was a misapplication, misunderstanding, or honest disagreement, as the terms used in the guidelines are so subjective than good faith editors can, and often do, have differing viewpoints about what is and what is not trivia. One man's freedom fighter is another's insurgent, as it were. To me, it was never trivia, it was encyclopedic, and it's loss would be a loss for WP and it's readers. There is more than sufficient sources available, including academic ones, to support this article. Furthermore, and more importantly, an article needing improvement is not an article needing deletion. That should be the sixth pillar of WP. I do not understand the apparent anti-trivia crusade (or against what some editors perceive as "trivia") within WP, as "x in popular culture" and similar sections/articles were one of the reasons I came here as a reader before becoming an editor. That added the "spice" to an otherwise bookish article. And, there is no policy that disallows such content, per se. I have no objection to merging this with the main article, in fact I would prefer it, but a merge !vote is sometimes seen as a delete vote, I think. And it will be easier now, having been recast. — Becksguy (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this article (and all others like it) is that the material doesn't need to be forked. If it's notable enough already, it should be incorporated into the main body of the article it was originally derived from. By definition, crap that accumulates in trivia and "...in popular culture" sections isn't notable enough for the article itself. It's like adding a gigantic PS to the article with all of the useless minutae that didn't make the cut for the original article. I believe this is almost universally true for all pop culture articles and sections.
    Further, if we begin to accomodate such lists, they will attract more and more trivial items until we have to fork popular culture articles into "Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (TV)" and so on. This is an encyclopedia, it is not a storybook or an almanac of everything to ever happen in the history of mankind. We should strive to remove unencyclopedic content and improve what isn't so that Wikipedia can continue to maintain its accessibility and readibility well into the future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • that it might get worse is not reason for deleting it. Any WP article could. Many of them do. They all need watching. DGG (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: The article has gone through massive changes, though there's still a need for nifty copyediting. Would you people take a look again? I wanted to stay away from this silly discussion where people are arguing that an article needs to be deleted because "it could get worse", instead of arguing that it needs to be kept because "it could get better". Well, I hope, it got better this time against some abysmal pessimism. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is making that claim. This article needs to be deleted so that the material can be reincorporated into Jayne Mansfield. Your edits have made it easier by converting the lists to prose so that any editor may copy and paste the most important sections of this article into that one and delete the rest. Cumulus Clouds 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For instance, I have moved a portion of this article into the relevant section of the main article. With community consent, I will do this to the rest of the remaining sections and leave the rest for deletion. Cumulus Clouds 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per The Heymann Standard. This article is so different now than it was when it was nominated and so well-referenced that the nominator's deletion rationale no longer has any relevance to the current article. DHowell 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment [split into parts]
    1. Actually this IPC article was split out of the main article because of space considerations there, as a result of a discussion. So, no, it is not a collection of trivia that is not notable enough to be in the main article. And the idea that it could be a trivia magnet is not a reason to delete.
    2. From what I see, the deleters don't seem to be responding to the main thrust of the keep arguments here and in the previous AfD, and also now in the article (all incorporated here by reference): This is not trivia. It's extremely well cited cultural references that support the central assertion of her phenomenal impact on pop culture. An impact so great that it transcends generations. Aditya, DGG, Tvoz, myself, and others have offered sound and valid arguments, and even unimpeachable academic sources, that attest to that fact. Yet the main deletion argument appears to only refer to the lack of a unifying element, and claim that these are unrelated items only connected by the mention of her name. And also mostly ignoring the undeniable evidence of her phenomenal impact on pop culture today. That is the unifying element, not that her name happened to be mentioned in each instance. In other words, it's backwards, as it's not trivia riding on her coattails (or inheriting her notability), rather these notable and sourced references support her notability and social impact on pop culture.
    3. Even the nominator, in his nomination statement referred to her "...pop culture presence". DGG said in the first AfD: " Most of the individual items mentioned are highly significant works by notable artists, and their use of this particular symbol is because it is generally culturally recognized as important." The article has 57 citations at this point, including several academic ones.
    4. If this article was about some essentially unknown actress and listed every thing she ever appeared in or was mentioned in, I would agree to delete (and I have done so in other AfDs). I even completely agree with the removal of this reference to Hatta Mari diff by Cumulus Clouds, as it's wasn't notable enough.
    5. This second AfD is destructive to Wikipedia in that it wastes all our time and energy that we all could have spent improving the article (or other articles), as described in WP:IPC. And the first AfD came out only two days after this article was forked. Aditya actually did the most sensible thing here by spending all that energy and time rewriting and sourcing the article with phenomenal success. Something we all could learn from.
    6. I have no problem if the content is merged, but only if that merge includes all the content. Any further discussions about merging, integrating or rewriting the content should then take place on the talk page as part of the normal reflective editorial consensus process, rather than here in an highly pressured AfD deadline driven environment that affect all the editors involved in this debate. Otherwise, Keep.
    Thank you. — Becksguy 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the revisions that Aditya has made to this article make much of that information more valuable than it had been in bulleted form, I propose that we begin to merge, with the consent of all concerned parties, that information back into Jayne Mansfield. This will make the original article longer, but I feel that the material will enhance the value of that article enough to override any concerns about length. Material that is disputed as irrelevant or unneeded will be discussed at Talk:Jayne_Mansfield_in_popular_culture and upon reaching consensus, will either be moved or retained in the popular culture article. All the remaining content will then be placed up for deletion at an AfD and editors can voice their concerns about retaining the leftover material there. I volunteer to work with Aditya in executing this merge. Cumulus Clouds 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amen to that. But, I'd still like to have the biography article (Jayne Mansfield) and the cultural impact article (Jayne Mansfield in popular culture) separate, and develop both articles. One article may not have space enough for the cultural phenomenon that we know as JM. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    one way or the other, it's an editing question (as is the use of list vs. paragraph format). This should never have come here at all, and what is necessary to do is to simply keep it, and let those interested in the subject work on it. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, DGG. — Becksguy 09:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - I have often argued for the retention of "popular culture" articles, because they are a repository for every inane literary, film, etc. reference to the subject, though largely NN. In this case, the article has been culled of the muddle. What is left looks like a substantial article, but not one that is distictly different from that on Jayne Mansfield. I would suggest that the material on her post-death reputation should become a new section at the end of her main article, possibly followed by a "popular culture" section with a few inane items, so that the kind of editor who enjoys collecting minor literary references will add them there rather than to what I hope will by them be a well written article. I know little of the subject and am thus not volunteering. Peterkingiron 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely right, Peterkingiron.--NAHID 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per DGG or Merge as proposed. Bearian 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another confrontation between mergist and splittist Wikipedians? If we start following the merge logic here - "if it is notable enough it could be merged into the Jayne Mansfield article" - then a lot more could follow. Like, if the information in the Jayne Mansfield article is found to be notable enough it could erged into the Hollywood article, then the Hollywood article could be merged into the Film article... and so on. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong here, like probably "I don't like this article" or something. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why we have WP:SIZE. Merge and split debates should be about individual merits. There is a general trend against "in popular culture" articles, (more of a deletionist movement than a mergist one). I don't like it isn't sufficient grounds for deletion (if it was there'd be no articles on politics or religion by the end of the week), but it does crop up unsurprisingly often in AfD debates. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Totnesmartin's comment about WP:SIZE, as that's the reason this IPC article was split off, and especially about individual merits. I'm also concerned about what I see as deletionism generally as a trend away from improving some articles through normal consensus based editing, although I can see that there are editors that believe they are improving WP by doing so (WP:AGF). I will defer to Aditya's sense of space considerations and desirability for having two articles, the main Jayne Mansfield article and this one, as this editor is the primary editor for this article, and is a major contributor to the mother article, and therefore knows the subject better than most of us, I think. So this is to confirm that my !vote is still a Strong Keep despite my comments on merging. And my main concern is still to preserve all of the content in this IPC article, for reasons expressed before. There is zero consensus for deletion at this point, and I seriously doubt any will develop so close to the end of the AfD discussion period. The consensus seems roughly split between Keep and Merge, although I believe the keep arguments are more persuasive. I urge Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 16:31, 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. Carioca 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Queenstown Rovers[edit]

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

    Nothing more than a single sentence definition and an external link. Rtphokie (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Queenstown Rovers play in the second flight of soccer in NZ, and as such are notable. I shall attempt to enlarge the article. BTW, why is there no AFD notice on its page? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per Grutness. However, I am concerned that they don't play in a national competition but the sources uncovered by Grutness have allayed my concerns to some extent. Capitalistroadster (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply/comment. In NZ soccer there is only one national division, after which there are four regional leagues for the upper and lower North Island and upper and lower South Island. The league that QR are in is the top flight of one of these four leagues - as such it is level two of NZ soccer, and Queenstown Rovers would therefore rank in the country's top 50 or so teams. Also, the article mentions Queenstown Rovers' participation in the Chatham Cup, which is a national competition. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Grutness. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable enough in NZ to keep. They're probably far more notable than a lot of the lower-league English clubs who have stubs. Peanut4 (talk) 11:28, 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 Redirects are cheap, be bold and try one yourself. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life[edit]

    Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a copy of the article Foundation for Family and Life, created by Verymuch2000 to create a distinction with the mainstream organization Couples for Christ. Click here and here to understand why Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life should only be referred to as Foundation for Family and Life. Jedjuntereal (talk) 14:00, 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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maleflixxx Television[edit]

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

    This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: There's no reason at all to delete. It provides enough information on the article, it's notable, it provides references from many sources all of which are independent and reliable, there is no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Article is verifiable against WP:RS's provided. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sources look good enough to me for a stub. It will improve eventually. Mangojuicetalk 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteWeak Delete There's no doubt this is an existing TV channel, but my concern is with notability. digitalspy.co.uk, gay.com and gaywired.com posted about the launch of the channel in 2004 - most of it reading like a press release. That's not really what I understand as notability by independent sources. --Minimaki (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a couple more sources: Viacom going up against them: [23] and AVN calling them as a leader in the gay VOD market with international reach [24]. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The variety.com article does mention it, and AVN has an article about it - which does weaken my concerns - changed vote above accordingly. Still a delete for now, as I'm not sure how much an article on AVN proves. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those are press releases, all of them are independent reliable sources. If you think those are press releases then you obviously don't understand the difference between the two. And if that is the bases of your argument, then your argument should be rendered void. MusiMax (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I was a bit unclear, and you overlooked the word like when I said like press releases. In any case, to clarify, no, I did not think they are press releases - just that they read similar. From what I remember they all were from a day after the launch and did not contain anything besides information taken from the press release, which is not surprising as there was of course not much more info available yet. And very likely, those sites report the launch of all those channels, so it didn't convince me as being notable. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't even read like a press release either, yes they may take their info from a press release and then create a news article from that, but that's just how it works, everyone does it, they have to get their facts and info from somewhere and then create a news article using that info. And they also don't create an article on every channel either, they pick and choose what they think is important and what their readers would like to know about. MusiMax 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The television station is notable enough, and is verifiable through reliable sources. RFerreira 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cable channel with national distribution = notable. Keep. Bearcat 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bearcat. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Have to agree with Bearcat on this one. It's a national cable channel. It's inherently notable. Skeezix1000 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per Bearcat. Jeffpw 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bearcat as inherently notable. Also per Musimax, Mangojuice, and the other keep rationale as notable with sources. — Becksguy 15:32, 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. While the consensus here appears to be to keep the article, the keep rationale isn't very strong. I suspect we will wind up back here again if some reliable sources aren't added soon.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AOV Adult Movie Channel[edit]

    AOV Adult Movie Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: article has enough info, it's not biased, it's notable, no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a nation-wide cable channel. How does that make it non-notable? (I also believe the company creates content and has substantial operations in Canada, but I can't exactly go tracking down that information right now.) Torc2 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It's a nation-wide TV channel - but for example each website is world-wide. For the channel to have an article, it should be notable enough to have independent, reliable sources talk about it - and what I have seen so far doesn't convince me. If the company is notable, maybe there can be an article about the company instead. --Minimaki (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the article is fine enough to stay. There are thousands of article out there that doesn't have references and they stay. The article will improve with time. This is a nationwide television channel that has been around for a few years and is growing; I just don't think there it needs to be deleted. It's fine the way it is. MusiMax 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The availability of a cable channel and a website is not analogous. All websites by default are worldwide; it takes a conscious effort to make them not worldwide. Notability is proven by the fact this channel is available nationwide. The fact that media outlets include the channel's line-up in their TV listings is sufficient independent confirmation of notability.Torc2 00:03, 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. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Movieola[edit]

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

    This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW... how can you say "given lack of reliable sources", it has references from Playback Magazine and The Globe and Mail. I also just added a reference from Variety. These are very reliable and independent sources. MusiMax (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Notable article, many references added, no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete: Google brings up some mentionings that show the channel has "gotten around", none of which however qualify as a reliable source. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They are reliable sources, they talk about it's launch, they made a major deal to be distributed via Joost and they also talk about other dealings with the channel including ownership. They are reliable sources, all of which are independent, and there are many other sources on the net as well, these are only a select few. They article is fine the way it is, but it can also improve with time. MusiMax (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a real cable channel, I can't see how it isn't notable. Moheroy (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the company that operates it isn't sufficiently notable under WP:CORP, a licensed cable channel which is available across an entire country most certainly is notable enough under both existing practice and the media policy that's currently in development. Keep. Bearcat 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been discussed in some detail in the cited references including The Globe and Mail and Variety. Keep. --Paul Erik 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I believe that a national cable channel is inherently notable. Skeezix1000 13:16, 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 Redirect to Couples for Christ, (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation[edit]

    Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a copy of the article Couples for Christ, created by Verymuch2000 to create a distinction with the dissident group Foundation for Family and Life (see Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life.) Click here and here to understand why Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life should only be referred to as Foundation for Family and Life. Jedjuntereal (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Obviously, there is a notable dissident group. You sound like a Chinese person telling people that there is no such place as Tibet. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:23, 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 wasDelete. The delete comments are based fully upon policy and guideline. The article remains unsourced, thus unverified, despite being almost two years old. -JodyB talk 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    XXX Action Clips Channel[edit]

    XXX Action Clips Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: article has enough info, it's not biased, it's notable, no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems to be an actual cable channel? JJL (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nothing there but yet another TV channel. Unless each channel automatically gets an article, I'd like to see some independent sources talk about this one first. --Minimaki (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the article is fine enough to stay. There are thousands of article out there that doesn't have references and they stay. The article will improve with time. This is a nationwide television channel that has been around for a few years and is growing, theres no other television channel like this in the rest of Canada (entire channel centred around only showing clips from films); I just don't think there it needs to be deleted. It's fine the way it is. MusiMax 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cable channel with national distribution = notable. Keep. Bearcat 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete sources needed to meet WP:N. It would help if it was expanded to include the ratings information. Gtstricky (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a national cable channel, how is that not notable? The article has enough information included that it should stay, I don't think that references from the web is the be all and end all as it relates to notability. Given the subject of the article itself is enough to satisfy the notability concerns, which with it being a national cable channel is enough for it to be notable. MusiMax (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The argument for deletion is not that the article's topic is irrelevant, we understand that it is a national cable network. However, if the article not satisfy the requirements of sources from WP:N and from WP:V, then we are dictated to delete it. SorryGuy 21:20, 7 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 REDIRECT to The Perry Bible Fellowship. James086Talk | Email 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Skub[edit]

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

    PROD removed. Vague and weak assertion of notability, seemingly the only reason it wouldn't qualify for DB-WEB. Only sources are the webcomic/author's site and YTMND (the latter just the site itself, not any specific page). There are also links to some random Internet groups.Drat (Talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy protect and redirect to The Perry Bible Fellowship as a plausible search term. Will (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - agree with Will. Only notable in the context of PBF (IIRC it was only mentioned in one comic). -FrankTobia (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect -As per above. I have to admit that I came to this page when searching to figure out what an "ANTI SKUB" t-shirt was about. PaleAqua (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - semi-meme, so it has some significance. I, too, was trying to understand what "skub" was when coming to the page. Zchris87v 12:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Contino Speed System[edit]

    Contino Speed System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable "scale" invented by a school cross-country team. Stephenb (Talk) 12:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete past the first paragraph, it's entirely nonsense, and would be WP:NFT even if "real". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete The article is more a description of a joke than anything else - clearly not notable. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete entirely, per WP:NFT and/or WP:HOAX. A charming fabrication, but a fabrication nonetheless. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:09, 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 Nomination withdrawn / keep. Waggers (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold War Crisis[edit]

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

    What makes this mod more notable than others? What makes mods notable to begin with? AKFrost (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For those who have objections, I first suggest you look at WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:NOT#GUIDE. Without the game plot and the game mechanics, these mods have little writable information and really can't go any further.AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominator's suggestion: Delete or Merge into one list AKFrost (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, it might be a good idea to move these pages to Game info wikia and/or StrategyWiki. AKFrost 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As of time of writing, I will no longer reply to any comments that says "There is an article that's worse/less notable/less suitable." As Oni Ookami Alfador have kindly pointed out, I've repeated it enough times. Please discuss the merits of the pages only. AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retraction Retracting deletion request for Cold War Crisis and ShockWave (video game). However, these articles should still be merged in one list seeing that they don't have enough information (and AFAIK, no more since they aren't stubs) to warrant a full article. AKFrost (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also adding:

    *ShockWave (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) For the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKFrost (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep Cold War Crisis, weak delete the rest. Cold War Crisis seems to have won awards, and it has independent press coverage in magazines, making it somewhat notable. For the others, I see no similar notability. Huon (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This note was applicable to the Cold War Crisis only-Improve the article and Keep-Add in more references and improve the overall layout of the page to make it more encyclopedic--Quek157 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all I don't see why a very popular mod is not as notable as a standalone game, as I'm quite certain there are several standalone games far less known than Shockwave or Mental Omega that have articles here. Deleting an article just because it's about a mod is certainly as silly a reason as any, I've seen far worse articles than these be kept. It smells of elitism. CodeCat (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all Mods are like webcomics, they may not be something the general public knows about but within their specific community they can be quite respected, like these mods. These aren't the only examples of things notable only within their specific category, and as such I strongly feel these articles should be kept. But then again, knowing Wikipedia's policy on webcomic "notability", I wouldn't be surprised if someone overrules us and deletes them anyway. Strategia (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the problem with these articles is the utter lack of reliable, independent sources. The worst is Mental Omega, which has precisely one showing its nomination for an award it didn't win (I couldn't even confirm the "honorable mention" claimed; the source just gave a list of all nominees). Thus, the article's content isn't verifiable. Take such lines as "It is quite critically acclaimed" or "C&C All Stars garnered much attention in the C&C modding world" - says who? If I were to change the article and write that the mod was a critical failure, could you show me to be wrong? If there are no independent, reliable sources, the mods obviously are not notable (and by the way the same criterion applies to standalone games, too). The one (except Cold War Crisis) most easily salvageable probably is ShockWave, which claims an award for a game unit and a magazine article without providing details (such as the name and issue of the magazine). Huon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My main concern with these is that they read more or less like promotional material, while Mental Omega's page is mostly about its plot which amounts to nothing more than fanfiction (Certainly there has been no proof (non I could find) that any of the original developers helped write it. If you remove the fanfiction material in Mental Omega, there would be essentially nothing left. There would only be a couple of lines written about the units (Wiki is not a game manual, or so i've heard), soundtrack, new developments, and trivia (again, according to wiki policy it should be merged or reincorporated). While I'm not against having them in a page under "Mods of Command and Conquer series." I think they clearly don't deserve their own individual pages. On top of that, several important in-game pieces had their articles deleted (Tacitus, Bonus Crates(an C&C-unique bonus), etc.) and "Mammoth Tank" came close to. It would infinitely make more sense that all the canon and official material get documented first and these things later. Plus, IMO, the only thing that will make a mod notable is if it sells money or is acknowleged by the game company. None of which these four would satisfy AFAIK.76.102.199.11 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is me, forgot to log in.AKFrost (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all For one attempted deletions of multiple articles in the same AFD repeatedly illustrate themselves to be a bad idea (Nearly every one I have been a part of has had to be resubmitted as individual AFDs or just become a WP:TRAINWRECK.) Also, I agree in that mods are like webcomics in that they can have a large depth of notability and recognition within a narrow swath of people (specifically mod users). I am all for relisting these mods individually but I still would say at least CWC and it would seem shockwave are fit for their own articles, although needing cleanup. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know where your "multiple deletions = bad idea" is coming from, seeing that Wiki AFD guidlines have a section just for that. You're clearly alone here in that opinion. Also, Once you remove the plot material and any game-specific stuff as required for games (Wiki is not a game manual). You're left with about three paragraphs(One intro, One description, One list of awards and other material that makes it notable.) or less. That's hardly material on an article that can't be expanded any more. (Again, Plot is nothing more than fanfiction here, and I don't see any material on fanfiction on wiki because they're legally questionable to begin with.) Plus, on top of that, Shockwave is still in its beta stages. When did we ever have a page on a beta that's not a sequel to something? This is, of course, barring the questionable legality of mods to begin with, especially unlicensed mods like this. AKFrost (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you just going to repeat the same nonsense each time someone posts a reason for keep here? We can read thank you very much, we don't need you to repeat everything back. I never said I wasn't alone in the opinon on the multiple AFD thing and quite frankly (this is a good one here) I don't care! If I needed my opinions validated by some group of people have them count, I wouldn't be wasting my time on the wiki to begin with. FYI: A manual is not a plot synopsis. A manual contains instructional value. In fact, the core EVERY well written article on ANY sort of fiction on wikipedia, be it movie, comic, game, literature, epic, etc. provides some form of plot synopsis. Otherwise you get "<Article Title> is a videogame/movie/TV show/book. It came out on <date here>." and apparently that's it since no one is allowed to know what its about. Perhaps you should have your terminology all straightened out before you start throwing it around. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You obviously didn't read enough. The plot of these mods are fanfiction, especially Mental Omega which they claim is an "unofficial continuation to Yuri's Revenge." Search wikipedia, and tell me if you can find a single page on unendorsed, non-commercial fanfiction. Such fanfiction, their questionable legality aside, cannot be justified as notable. Without the plot, there is no page. Also, you seem to have a penchant of going off topic. Can you please focus on the merits of these articles? If you're just gonna play policy, I suggest you check WP:WL and WP:POINT. AKFrost 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all I'm in agreeance with Strategia here. Mods at first may not seem like a popular thing, but like webcomics and cult movies - they have a small but dedicated group of fans - except for the fact it isn't a film, but a modification to a game. Also, what about things like almost everything in the Quake mod categories? It seems you are only picking on C&C modifications and nothing else... you should be focussing more on things like this, which look dead like an advertisement, and not like some of the sourced stuff you see here. 59.167.239.172 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't list the Quake Mods because I don't play Quake, and, quite frankly, cares little for Quake. Using Quake as a example is irrelevant. If you think Action Quake 2 should be nominated for AfD, I suggest you do so. Just because that is even more poorly written doesn't mean every article better written doesn't deserve to be deleted. Finally, you'll note that the sources on CWC is all from their own website. Since when was that a criteria for notability? What, can I just go off and make a website for my mod and it'll be notable? Add a few more reviews from my friends, and it'll be notable? Again, I reiterate my thoughts. It's only notable if either the company endorses it, or it becomes a commercial product. None of which these four have been shown to match.AKFrost (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the wrong section, but nevertheless, my original point stands. They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews. As for the award, it only proves that it's one of the better mods, which still doesn't answer the question: how are mods notable? Webcomics are original content created by their authors. Mods are not. Mods are more comparable to fanfictions. And so far, even after combing wikipedia, I have yet to find any non-commercial fanfiction having articles on Wiki, and mods are of a similar nature. Mods are content created based, more or less, on content written by another party. See the difference? The final point is. What makes those sources a legitimate gauge of notability? If I take a mod given an award by a chinese/japanese/russian/british/you name it magazine. Would wiki accept it as a notable mod? I can certainly think of a mod that's practically played by everyone in China (because, strangely, it's bundled with 95% of the copies of Yuri's Revenge, authentic or pirated, that are in China.) Would that be a notable mod, even though practically nobody here in the States have ever heard of it? Again, a reasonable compromise is putting them under a list in one article, but having individual articles for these mods are giving them more attention than needed.AKFrost (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excuse me? Bribe columnists? What the hell? Also, yes, ShockWave's "only" in its beta stages, but it's already several years old, has a good following (for a mod) and in the time it's spent on ModDB has been nominated for "Mod of the Year" and reached a 10/10 rating. It's definitely one of the more notable C&C Generals mods. Same goes for CWC and Mental Omega. Yes, re-writing needs to be done but deleting it is going a little too far. As far as notability goes; do we really need articles on individual ships of the United States Navy? How do you define it in the first place? And how are mods NOT original content? Yes, they build forth on a basis provided by a company, but they create their own content within that context. Show me where it says the Lockdown MRLS, Tiger gunship or King Toxin Tractor (to use ShockWave as an example) were created by anyone else but the ShockWave team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategia (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a suggestion, I'm just going on with the possibilities to illustrate that those columns' questionable reliability. How do we know the columnist didn't work on the mod in question, or is friends with someone who worked on the mod? As for the Navy Ships, I remind you of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. Again, it's not my problem because I don't care about Navy Ships. I care about C&C. If you think they're not notable, go ahead and put them up for deletion. I don't know what's up with those "Article X exists, it's worse, so this should stay" arguments, but I suggest you stop using it. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. If it's not about C&C material, why does it have relevance? In fact, even though it is bad practice, I will counter with "Why the Tacitus, a central plot device to the C&C universe, doesn't have an article?" Are you going to ask me to write it? If so, I'll ask you to nominate whatever you think is less notable to be nominated for AfD. Quid pro quo, and stop using it as an argument for keeping these articles. AKFrost (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need I remind you... WP:ATA is an ESSAY, not a guideline or policy. It is a tool to help users craft effective arguements, a a list of rules for how you're allowed to state your case. Honestly they need to make that essay template bigger... I'm getting tired of explaining this to people.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand perfectly, thank you. It's presumptuous for you to assume I didn't know it was an essay. However, like you pointed out yourself, the point of that essay is to guide you on crafting effective arguments. Even if it is in essay form, the main idea of the passage I pointed out, that "What about article X" is not an effective argument, still stands regardless of what form it was written in. I don't particularly care for any other pages that may or may not need deletion. I saw these four, and I will judge them on their merit only. Other articles have no meaning. If you really want a comparison, compare that to the Tacitus. It was redirected some time ago so I didn't comb AfD for the page. However, the argument stands, if this canonically important piece doesn't get its article, how is stuff that's not canon notable, especially under the Command and Conquer group? If we're really trying to document information about Command and Conquer, wouldn't it be logical to go for the canon first? As stated before, these mods are not mainstream games. They might have a dedicated fanbase, but I can't imagine it being large enough to merit more notability than an object which is central to the plot of a game that not only the modders played and worked on, but also played and enjoyed by non-modders. 76.102.199.11 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on top of that, I'm really sick and tired of having to explain this: If you find a worse article, good for you, nominate it for deletion. It has no bearings on this case. Rather than using a logical fallacy "If y is less than 100, and x is greater than y, then y must be greater than 100," why don't you just nominate the dang article for AfD and have done with it. Just because you found a junk article, doesn't mean it should be there. Limit your discussion to these articles, please. 76.102.199.11 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously you don't. You're still repeating the same stuff that everyone here has already heard 6 times. Please keep in mind, an AFD has to reflect some form of consensus in order to come to a deletion, yet you seem as quick as possible to alienate everyone who posts their thoughts here. Perhaps my error was assuming that you mistook it for a guideline. I suppose the truth here is you need an explanation of what an essay is. An essay on wikipedia holds ZERO official endorsement or merit. It takes but a single person to write an essay, and just because an essay exists does not mean it is of any quality, that its recommendations should or should not be followed, et cetera. You seem to think that just because this essay exists that everyone's argument has to be crafted in its image. Also, lets drop the news column conspiracy theories please. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of nonsense. Unless you have EVIDENCE that the source is not credible , please don't go making outrageous claims about the incompetence or bad practice of sources just because they compromise your position.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what the heck is your problem with me quoting from that. Even if WP:ATA wasn't there to begin with, arguing that this should be kept because there exists a worse page still is nauseatingly stupid. If anything, it means that you should take a minute more of your time to nominate those articles for deletion.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the column bribery thing, I am using it to illustrate that columns are inherently unreliable. Hell, I can write a column about Ogabogabogie or something stupid. Does that make Ogabogabogie notable? What about if me and all my friends did? Does the reliability of columns somehow increase because there are other columns to back it up? I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am repeating what I said because people blatantly ignore what I said, so I figure I should reiterate it so you could not possibly miss it. What, we've gotten the "What about article X" argument from how many people now? Even after I repeatedly stated that I don't give a rat's ass about what those other articles are? Don't blame me for reiterating, blame them for not reading. I don't care if you list the entire cesspit of wikipedia on this AfD. It means ZERO to me as far as this AfD is concerned. It means to me that you have a lot of work to do by nominating all of them for deletion. Again, read what I have said a million times: argue only on this article's merits.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, you seem quite happy to alienate me, Oni Ookami Alfador. I also ask you, how am I to achieve consensus with anybody if they choose not to return for the debate after their initial post? AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 76.102.199.11 is me, forgot to log in. AKFrost 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all, but rewrite AKFrost, you are really stomping on the pride of modders everywhere by discrediting our work as not even comparable to the creative ventures of webcomicists. If you had any idea of how much work it is to make content and maintain PR for a large and acclaimed modification, compared to inventing an idea, sketching inking and coloring it, and then uploading it, you would never have said such a thing. ShockWave is a direct continuation of Zero:Hour and most of its content is based on the design direction taken by EA. Does this mean that the loads of work we do to conceptualize, model, skin, sound design and balance test every single one of the close to two hundred unique units, buildings, and features we've designed for our mod is somehow worthless, just because it's a modification? Does this mean that any kind of sequel to a creative property is also automatically worthless and not worthy of having a wikipedia article? The fact that thousands of people are downloading and enjoying the mod (easily proveable), anticipating the newest release somehow doesn't make it noteable? Wikipedia has pages upon pages of comprehensive articles about the most obscure cartoons, books, comics, games and animé series. Why shouldn't we be able to keep a few page-long articles about mods that are, in fact, rather well known, once we give them proper citation and article structure? Cycerin (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hardly think effort or pride contributes to notability. Again, these articles don't have much more to go. You can't put the plot in it because regardless of what you say, without a direct statement from EA, your claim that you're expanding on EA's storyline is unfounded. Again, noncommercial fanfiction without endorsement doesn't belong on wikipedia. Without the plot, what is there really to say about these mods? You're practically limited to nothing here. Wiki is not a game manual so you can't go into depth about the game mechanics (maybe a couple of lines at most.) Add that to a description and possible awards it won, and you have what, 10 - 12 lines? Is that enough for an article? Can you expand on it further? If you can't, why do these deserve articles?
    Again, I don't care what those anime/game/book/comics are. I take my time looking at the C&C material. Those articles you pointed to are either: stubs, with possible expansion; or AfD Material. Now, why don't you nominate them for deletion or expand on them? I ask again: How does the existence of an even more poorly written article justify the keeping of these articles?
    Finally, I acknowledge that it's a lot of work to make a mod, but does that mean it deserves a position on wikipedia? They're not worthless, but they aren't notable either for wikipedia's purposes. There is a wikia project that you can put your mod on. There are other things you can do with them like merge into a single page. Apparently pride is getting too much to you, seeing that you'd think it's an insult that something you've worked on doesn't get covered. As wikipedia's editors, you have to be objective in views. If this is something you didn't work on or play, would you be more inclined to say it's a keep? I've worked on quite a plethora of mods for both C&C and Starcraft, should I be upset or offended because my work is not getting coverage?AKFrost (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, and rewriteThese articles need serious maintanence, and they definitely need a major merger, however, Wikipedia has seen miracles, and these pages are not hopeless. Shockwave's talk page seems to imply that it is popular and well reviewed. That might be worth looking into.Rogue Commander 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepBeing an anonymous user who just came by the article while trying to follow the discussion of some of my friends, and found it instructive, _and_ I've seen 'no one cares,' as an argument against notability, I must mention that -I- found the entry useful even in its current state. (Anonymous) 02:52 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.32.229 (talk)
    • That's hardly a reason to keep the article, seeing that every article ever written on wikipedia have some kind of useful value, yet a good number of them was deleted. Nobody is making the "no one cares" argument. I suggest you look at WP:IINFO for the relevant policy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AKFrost 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but rewrite: I came out of retirement for a delete discussion. I think I'm addicted to Wikipedia... Logical2u 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [Explanation below][reply]
        • As near as I can tell, your major concerns appear to be the plot and game mechanics. I agree that at least one of the four has major plot discussions. So does almost every videogame on Wikipedia, though. Doesn't make it right, at least by our own standards, but it's kind of accepted now. Even internet fads have essays on them. And every videogame's plot is technically fan fiction, but that fan happens to have created the plot of a popular game... (Alright, weak argument, but it made sense to me when I wrote it... it's fiction about a game, but it is the game. Does that make it different?)
        • Game mechanics in the cases of mods are valid when contrasted appropriately with the root game's gameplay, IMHO.
        • Mirroring may be a solution, but there's enough notability (Or at least, varying levels of notability, I'm not going to spend my time researching each of them) to warrant something of an article on some of these mods.
        • Now, AKFrost, because you seem to have such strong opinions on this topic according to your posts (Bribing columnists to talk about things to get articles on Wikipedia? I'm a columnist and I don't even have an article about myself :P), and this delete discussion is your largest contribution yet to Wikipedia, you might want to take on the task of working these articles down to the verifiable and confirmed stuff. And then maybe move onto Half Life mods.
        • Good luck to you, but as for now, there are enough tidbits of notability and verifiability in my opinion to warrant either
          A: A redirect (Which I would support with proper preparations)
          B: A reference and paragraph on the CnC Generals main page (Again, needs proper prep) or
          C: A small page (Say, one with a drastically cut back plot and unit section, focused more on media attention and popularity).
        • Is a small page necessarily one that deserves to exist? Yes, stubs are everywhere. With proper citations, references, and the like, stubs can still be well written. Oh, and AK... I'm sure you've heard of Halogen. If you're on the topic of CnC Generals mods, there was certainly enough press attention on that one, it might deserve a stub too. Is this knowledge Wikipedia has collected about mods indiscriminate? Uh, I guess that depends on your definition of indiscriminate. Withs cites + refs, I would argue no. Good luck to you in your future. Logical2u 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your suggestion, but I'd like to point out that I do not meant to insult with the statement about bribing columnists. I'm merely suggesting a possible way which they may be abused to establish notability, and with that the inherent unreliability of isolated reviews/columns/blog posts. I found the sources cited for these articles to be extremely unreliable (AFAIK they are just claims, or one of these editors who disagree with me would have came up with enough evidence to immediately disprove my claim, keep the pages, and have everyone move on in life.) My personal notability requirement (I know, Oni Ookami Alfador, that you don't care what I think, but it's what drove me to nominate this AfD, and people should know), as I stated many times before, is either that it's a commercial product, or in the event which it can't due to copyright laws, that the copyright holder endorses it. It means something if people are willing to pay their hard-earned money to buy your work. A lot more than just an award, even if it is from a modder's guild. If anything, the award just means that the mod is in their opinion one of the best mods, but in the grand scheme of things not really that outstanding. I'll admit, I was a bit irked that the canon material was getting deleted as unnotable (they did a horrendous job with the Tacitus, now it's impossible to tell what it is, when they had an entire page detailing it before) while these pages are somehow pulling through on just citations to blog posts and supposed awards. AKFrost (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment: Didn't mean to counter-insult you, I was trying to be humourous with my columnist statement, and while I'll help out on maintenance (not on this account, of course), I don't think I'll be doing a ton of work on Wikipedia, I got too addicted last time... it's hard to be funny on the internet, btw. In any case, a lot of things on the internet (even Wikipedia) are unreliable. I can't say I agree or disagree with your notability requirements (I think I mainly used the Google + News Source tests). Now, though, looking at the sources we DO have for mods (which seem to be kind of polarized on notability issues), such as ModDB, things like their Mod of the Year award (80k votes last year, with Mental Omega being a runnerup in the Strategy Genre Mod of the Year category... the opinion of 80k may not be much in the scheme of life, but it's more than a select few) and other open votes would provide some manner of notability measurement. Others, like Halogen, have been mentioned on blogs or the like over a few particular incidents (Getting canned by MS in favour of Halo Wars). Shockwave was apparently in a German PC magazine this year ([25]) and others have had much more success at times. The real question, I guess, is how should Wikipedia, as a whole, determine notability? And that's a question that may have to left for ages, because I doubt we'll ever find a happy consensus. Logical2u (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment This is why I won't object to moving to wikia or merging as a single list. I think as a list, perhaps at Notable Mods of the Command and Conquer Series, would be a reasonable compromise. The information should be preserved, just not as articles. Mental Omega's Plot synopsis is completely unnecessary, as I have stated before. Since none of these four mods are commercial software, it makes little sense to treat them the same way as commercial games. I don't mean to be too materialistic, but a game obviously has a lot more weight if people are willing to pay for it, and I think that's what makes games article-notable rather than inclusion within a list. AKFrost (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep CWC, re-write the rest I re-wrote the CWC page from it's original incarnation, I don't really have any idea about the other mods notability, as I don't play the original game, I don't have anything to do with any of these mods or the community, and thus don't know the notability or possible notability of the non-CWC mods. CWC has clear notability, real-world and online articles by well known magazines and websites, as well as actually releasing their mod (it's not vapourware). What makes a book notable? What makes a anime TV show notable? What makes a person notable? What makes a band notable? I can't go and say "I don't know who these bands are, they are non-notable, and what makes them notable anyway" on a band's page, so there is no excuse for it here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better be careful there... according to AKF, the videogame illuminati have infiltrated the magazines and news sites!--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oni Ookami Alfador, I refer you to WP:POINT Again, you clearly have nothing to do here but to latch on that one thing I said and beat the dead horse to a second grave. If you have nothing to contribute, then stay off the topic.AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What makes a book, an anime TV show, a band or a person notable? According to WP:N's general notability guideline, a "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." CWC clearly fits that bill, and with a little work, ShockWave may be shown to do so, too. The others? I don't see much hope there. Huon (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How do you demonstrate the reliability and independence of those sources? And as of time of writing, CWC still doesn't have any citations. The sources cited are:
       * http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=36
   * August Edition of PC Games Magazine.
   * August Edition of PC Action Magazine.

    It goes without saying that the magazine citations are of questionable relevance because nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from these megazines. I didn't bother reading the column, but it's still problematic to assume reliability on this one post. Can anyone provide more instances of CWC in other forums? I believe WP:N requests for significant coverage. These three sources hardly seem significant if you can't even tell us what it said. I actually disagree with Huon, Shockwave at least put up some semblence of an article with citations, whereas CWC have nothing. AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment um.... the articles establish it's notabilty, and the article is written around the facts of the mod itself. "nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from the magazines"... what does that matter? The magazines showed the mod, the article shows what the mod is. Unless the reverse vampires and the rand corporation infilitrated the magazines as well Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment um.... no. Unless you can provide the page which the magazines refer to the mods, you can't establish the relevance of the magazines. On top of that, the article lacks citations. WP:NOR Requires every claim/statement to be sourced and property cited. How about providing a page scan, or even just a quote or a page number? I'm certain most people who post here, especially those who vote for keep, would have a vested interest in these mods, and perhaps have the magazines to provide more sources. The burden of proof is on you to establish verifiability and relevance. You can't just put a random magazine and claim it talks about the mods without a proper citation. If these magazine sources are valid, then it would be trivial to provide page numbers and quotes, something I'm not seeing in these articles, despite having its notability challenged back in november. AKFrost (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references. They clearly required page numbers from printed material. AKFrost (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *Comment "Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all. In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. There is NO reason to delete this article. Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article. As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made. These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage. Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us.
    http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pca1.jpg
    http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pcg1.jpg
    http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs1.jpg
    http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs2.jpg
    http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs3.jpg

    Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Was it so difficult for you to provide the scans so you could substantiate your claim? Or do you think that making snide comments about what I said somehow make the article worth a keep? Can you get back on topic and stop beating a dead horse. Now, please. Put these on the article and have done with it. Finally, WP:IAR and WP:UCS only applies if you have good reason, which, again, you've neglected to state. I can't read your mind, and I certainly did not know the existence of these prints until now. Don't assume that what you know, everybody else knows. Bring out the evidence. AKFrost (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, you'll note your style of debate is fundamentally flawed. I will dissect what you said and hopefully it will become clear on you.
    • ""Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all." This is your personal opinion. Your opinion counts no more than mine, do not make it sound like it's a fact, or somehow your judgment makes it right.
    • " In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. " Again, this is a claim. I don't care how self-evident you think your arguments are. Don't assume I can fill in all your blanks for you. Why is it notable? What articles? What websites? Can you please specify?
    • "There is NO reason to delete this article." Based on previous faulty logic, you have not convinced me at all.
    • "Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article." Is this even necessary? Am I even debating this point? I agree it can be improved, and if you haven't noticed yet, the reason I asked for evidence is to improve the article. What you had before does not satisfy WP:N in any way. When you argue, you have to use hard facts, not something easily fabricated (This being putting the name of a magazine without any scans, page numbers, etc, which was the case at the time.)
    • "As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made." Just because it's "Generally" , "is not set in stone" and the existence of WP:IAR does not mean they don't apply at all. Rather, you'll have to show us why it doesn't apply. Since you provided the scans and page numbers, these policies can be followed. I don't know what you're trying to argue, but whatever it is doesn't make any sense.
    • "These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage." Again, what are "these"? Do I have to play guess what it is every time I talk to you? Can you please be specific?
    • "Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us." Um. I don't, and this fails WP:Civility. I don't know why you think it's okay to make such comments repeatedly, but it doesn't help the discussion any.
    • Finally, When I went to your talk page, you claimed you saved CWC already. This issue is not dead yet. You're being pretentious about your own editing, inadequate as it is. AKFrost (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have added the sources Macktheknifeau provided to us to the article. Now we just need citations. Unfortunately, I can't read German, Can somebody help out then? AKFrost (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since nobody has commented in favor of All Stars and Mental Omega, do we have consensus that these should be deleted and possibly have the content merged into a list? AKFrost (talk) 07:31, 7 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 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Payas[edit]

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

    I don't see how this football player is notable enough for Wikipedia. He plays for Gibraltar, which is a non-recognized national football team, and he scored a goal at the 2007 Island Games. It appears that he's now playing for Harlow Town F.C. in the Isthmian League Premier Division, the 7th level of English club football, but he is not listed in the article's Current Squad section. The only other records I could find of him online were that he played for Manchester United Gibraltar in the 2002-03 season, and that he was named 2002 Young Footballer of the Year in Gibraltar. AecisBrievenbus 10:22, 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 as a non-notable joint venture, with only a single good source, which fails to verify its importance. Ample chances to improve the article have failed. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Innovative communications alliance[edit]

    Innovative communications alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    What notability does an agreement between two companies have? It is just an interoperability agreement; thousands of such agreements are there in place. In fact, similar agreements exist between MS and other companies like Cisco et al, and I'm sure even Nortel would have. What has the partnership resulted in? Till now, just an outline of how the interoperability will proceed. Thats suitable for a press release, not an encyclopedia article. soum talk 10:50, 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, Spellcast (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Reads like a press release, but more importantly there's no clear claim for notability. Alberon (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to a small mention in the articles of Microsoft and Nortel. Redirect could go to either, with a note on the talk page of the other for GFDL purposes. Xoloz (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nortel and Microsoft are working together to create solutions that join together hardware and software solutions to integrate today's voice, video and date communications systems. I defy you to tell me what you learned from reading this sentence without quoting its words. Please make my "solution" with ethanol, thanks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:20, 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. W.marsh 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Niagara Falls Cyclones[edit]

    Niagara Falls Cyclones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unverifiable article on a non-notable baseball team. 5 ghits. TLDR also applies to this extensive diary of events. MER-C 12:19, 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, Spellcast (talk) 10:00, 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 merge to Dane Rauschenberg. If you are unsure, still, of Rauschenberg's notability then the solution is to AFD that article. Neil ☎ 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiddy2[edit]

    Fiddy2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article does not meet the notability criteria for a website. If notability is to be judged by the underlying task of running 52 marathons on consecutive weekends, at least three other people have done it before. If notability is to be judged on running a number of marathons in a year, other people have run more. Similarly, other people have run more consecutive weekends. Whenever the article is edited to remove NPOV problems, IP address only editors come back and re-add POV in a manner which suggests major WP:COI problems. Any objective reader must question whether this entire matter is about fund-raising or about self-generating publicity. The external references are not hard news coverage, but rather non-discriminating media reflecting the numerous press releases that are described in the article. If every runner posted a wikitable with his/her past races, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with non-notable data. The posting of finishing place without stating the size of the total field is misleading and POV, and efforts to add the total field sizes to the table meet with repeated deletion by the WP:COI contributors. In short, this is an ego trip rather than a serious article and does not meet any standard of notability. Xcstar (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete At first glance the list of external references, including the Washington Post, seem to provide sufficient notability. But they're nearly all about other runners. There isn't enough notability to justify a page for the subject. Alberon (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Dane Rauschenberg. After the exceedingly bad faith demonstrated in the related AfD (including nearly ten sockpuppets involved in the AfD and efforts to butcher the article, we now have an AfD from an individual who has endeavored to remove any and all meaningful content from the original article in an apparent attempt to eviscerate it into meaninglessness. It was never clear to me why the two articles were separate, and now is the time to combine them and put an end to the continuing pattern of abuse that should have ended when the Dane Rauschenberg AfD ended as a no consensus despite the sockpuppetry. Alansohn (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Dane Rauschenberg. Fiddy2 is a one-man enterprise. Just as there isn't an article about Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic and everything about it is covered in the article on Lindbergh, there shouldn't be a separate article about Rauschenberg's quest to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks - the material should be included in the Dane Rauschenberg article. CruiserBob (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether there is anything notable here. During 2006, two people ran 50 marathons in 50 days Sam Thompson and Karnazes. Chuck Engle ran 51 marathons that year because one was cancelled at the last minute, but his average time was about 30 minutes faster than Dane's. A number of people have run marathons on consecutive weekends, including streaks of 73 and over 100. A number of people have run more than 52 marathons in the same year. There is nothing unique about the year 2006 or about the number 52, yet the claim to notability is that Rauschenberg is the only person to have run exactly 52 marathons in the year 2006. Efforts to edit the articles to place this "achievement" in context are always reverted, and if the article remains there is no prospect of an end to WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems. Rauschenberg is admittedly a genius at self-promotion as demonstrated by his use of Wikipedia, yourrunning.com, and allsportrunning.com, but Wikipedia should not be misused to legitimize this. Xcstar (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is only getting more disturbing. The issue of Dane Rauschenberg's notability has already been settled at that article's AfD. You -- and some ten other sockpuppets -- were actively trying to push that argument at that AfD and in editing that article, and that view was rejected. Wikipedia does not require someone to be "unique", merely notable. Even by your argument, Rauschenberg would be one of a small handful of individuals to have run 50+ marathons that year, which would still be a rather strong claim of notability. Clearly, notability has already been demonstrated for Rauschenberg. It is at best improper to try to fight that old AfD here, where Rauschenberg's notability is not even a relevant question. The only question before us is whether his list of accomplishments belongs in a separate article or should be combined with his article. It's time to end this obsession with Rauschenberg. Ten sockpuppets have already been blocked due to this one article. Please don't be number eleven. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of notability for websites (and this article appears to be about the fiddy2.org website) is clear WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It clearly fails. (criteria 2 and 3 are not applicable.) The issue of notability for fiddy2 as a fundraising organization also fails. As to whether either fiddy2 or Rauschenberg meet the notability test in general, they do not because primarily of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and also because the sources mistakely relied upon by the Rauschenberg advocates are not "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Instead, they are uncritical recycling of the press releases generated by Rauschenberg.
    My proposed solution is to add a subsection to the marathon article to cover multiple marathon achievements. At the most, fiddy2/Rauschenberg could gain a passing reference in such a subsection. Separate articles on fiddy2 and on Rauschenberg are not warranted and never have met the notability test. Xcstar (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is only getting more desperate. As stated in the first sentence of this article, "Fiddy2 was Dane Rauschenberg's project to run one marathon every weekend in 2006". WP:WEB has no relevance, as it has nothing to do with the content of a website. WP:NOT#ADVERTISING is also a non-starter as there is nothing being advertised here. This is nothing more than a back door effort to subvert the failure to delete the Dane Rauschenberg article by deleting this one, and using excuses for deletion that are ever more unjustified. Rauschenberg is notable; a list of his efforts probably is not notable; they should be merged to their parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My new proposal is that we delete fiddy2 and at most add a sentence to Marathon#Multiple Marathons. The fiddy2 article is an obvious attempt to drive traffic to fiddy2.org where fundraising and the sale of fiddy2 logo merchandise continues. I have yet to see a "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that supports a claim of notability. Minor plugs prompted by Rauschenberg's press releases do not qualify. Xcstar (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "New proposal"?!?!?! Your proposal all along has been to delete this article. The problem is that the article you're discussing for deletions is the Dane Rauschenberg article, which is not up for discussion now, and whose deletion attempt failed, despite your actions and those of a whole myriad of sockpuppets. Your clairvoyance as to the motives behind the creation of the article are not credible, nor are your attempts at disrupting this article. The "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that supports a claim of notability is all at Dane Rauschenberg, where this material belongs. It's time to end the obsession with Dane Rauschenberg and stop the sockpuppetry. You are rapidly approaching 90% of your edits being directly related exclusively to Dane Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion of the fiddy2 article remains my primary recommendation. I have concluded that due to WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems, it will never evolve into something worthwhile. As a counter-proposal to the suggestion that the wikitable be merged into the Dane Rauschenberg article, I am proposing that at most one sentence be added to the new Marathon#Multiple marathons subarticle. None of the participants in the AfD here were the parties to the past vandalism of either article, and I assume the good faith of all participants. I don't understand the orgin of the "fiddy2" name or its significance, other than it was arbitarily chosen as the name for the fiddy2.org website and the 2006 project. However, applying either the WP:WEB or WP:NOTE in general, all the references are "coverage with low levels of discrimination" and the fiddy2 article lacks long-term reference value or significance.
    • The wikitable does not contain valuable information, and merely duplicates the information on the fiddy2.org website. The data was included by Fiddy2, who is presumably a sockpupet of Dane Rauschenberg. The new Marathon#Multiple marathons subarticle contains a reference to a man who has run 945 marathons in his lifetime, but it would be inappropriate to include a wikitable listing all 945 marathons in that article. Similarly, Cal Ripken Jr. has an admirable streak of 2,632 consecutive major league baseball games, but it would be inappropriate to include a wikitable listing the details of each of those games. Greater reference value comes from a wikitable or list of notable multiple marathon achievements (e.g., the 25 runners who have completed the most marathons.) Xcstar (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Rauschenberg's case, the 52 marathons are specifically relevant to his notability, and the table provided here not only belongs in that article, but clearly supports his claim of notability. While Cal Ripken and 945 marathon guy all ended up with a record, Rauschenberg set out to achieve this particular goal, one that is supported bu ample independent, reliable and verifiable sources that support his notability, appearing before, during and after his effort. Your goal of deleting this article and the associated article for Rauschenberg seem merely a part of an effort to be disruptive. Appeals to "WP:COI and WP:NPOV problems" are merely an excuse to justify the disruption. This acknowledged abusive sockpuppetry must end. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge It would really seem obvious to anyone previously uninvolved--like me--that there is place for one article, but not two.DGG (talk) 11:11, 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 Keep but add references. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Grand strategy game[edit]

    Grand strategy game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not a notable genre. Sometimes grand strategy is mentioned in the context of other strategy games, but not enough to qualify it as a unique genre. Violates 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs) 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolution computer game[edit]

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

    Not a real genre. Made up genres will violate 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization

    • delete at most, there should be a brief note in the life simulations article. Randomran (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable (though some of the games listed are notable by themselves). --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Violate, eh? Anyway, I've never seen evolution, as a theme, discussed in the gaming press as a genre, so the article should be zapped. The associated category, Category:Evolution video games, should also be taken to CfD if someone would care to do the honours. (Oops, I was responsible for making that category :/) Marasmusine (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This Google search brings up some interesting (but not notable) educational games as well as some board games. SharkD (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is an article that lists some board games and calls it a "genre". SharkD (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nevermind. It's a user-submitted list. SharkD (talk) 08:21, 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 merge with Breakout clones. Done. Neil ☎ 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block kuzushi[edit]

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

    1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization

    • The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources. There are a few different games like this one [28] that would all make legitimate articles, though. Randomran (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - I suggest merging the article with Breakout clones. SharkD (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're curious (and wish to establish notability), Here is a machine translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject. Here is a machine translation of the Amazon.com page for one of the sources cited in the article. Here is the homepage for the author of the second source (I'm not sure exactly which book is being referenced). Here and here are search results for ブロック崩し (about 857,000 hits). Note, the latter link, a poorer translation, returns the "literal" meaning cited in the article. This Google search results in several articles that explicitely call "breakout clones" a "genre". This one should pretty well satisfy your notability requirements. Finally, overcategorization applies to categories. This is an article. SharkD (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per SharkD and the article itself. There's no evidence this term possesses notable currency outside Japan. I don't fully accept arguments for standalone genrefication, but that doesn't really matter here. D. Brodale (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went ahead and merged the relevant text into Breakout clones. All that's left to do is change Block kuzushi into a redirect. (I'll leave that for someone else to do.) SharkD (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support merge, redirect As they're just variations on the same theme, Breakout clones makes a good genre article which can hopefully be built up.Someone another 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per above, or simply redirect, as there doesn't appear to be much here that would actually help the reader understand Breakout clones better. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 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 all. — Scientizzle 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Victor Kahu[edit]

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

    Fictional characters from Shortland Street with no sign of real world notability. Pak21 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also nominating for the same reason:

    Baxter Cormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ian Jeffries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jay Jeffries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Shanti Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sarah Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    James Scott (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Craig Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Harry Warner (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mark Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tania Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tuesday Warner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

    The result was keep. Neil ☎ 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gran March[edit]

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

    Fictional location from a game guide has no real-world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep or Merge to Flanaess. Attempts to improve articles should be made before deletion--try that, and take a break from your deletion spree.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Robbstrd. Articles that need improvement should be improved, not nominated for deletion. Rray (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Robbstrd. I see nominator still hasn't leanred the diffence between a game and a game guide. Edward321 02:28, 1 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 ☎ 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brightcove[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Brightcove. Was speedied six times under WP:CSD#G11, as spam advertising. Has a many links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions including 63 self references to sites owned by Brightcove. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.

    See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.brightcove.com ---Hu12 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Ok forget the 63 self-references, there's 17 good references still left, which is still above average for most WP articles. There's enough material from WSJ, News.com, USA Today, Reuters, etc. to create a satisfactory stub or starter article that passes WP criteria. It doesn't matter if the coverage is shallow if aggregating all the material provides enough for a reliable article. I wouldn't even classify any of the external references as trivial either, remove Brightcove from some of the stories and there would be no story. As for COI issues, liberal usage of the delete key is sufficient. hateless 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I was one of the several admins who deleted this article as spam before its creator finally agreed to create a temp version proving notability that someone would approve. We finally copied it into article space because it was neutral and well referenced. Since then, it looks like it has kind of exploded and there is definitely some text creeping in that could be trimmed back. However, this should not be outright deleted. Most of the article is the correct tone and there is a generous number of secondary sources proving notability. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget the references! This particular article is obviously OR SPAM. I don't doubt that a normal piece could be written from secondary sources, but this is not it. Delete this, recreate if anyone not working there cares. I know I don't. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I don't much like the article, and feel it could use some serious condensing, but I think it's legitimate, documented, and not very spam-like. Tim Ross·talk 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author Comment I wrote the page and I'm all for deleting the entire 2nd half and just keeping whatever history can be backed up with external references. I was just unclear what the policy is for self-references. (Isn't the site itself a primary resource for all the other stuff written about it?) I also take issue with being labeled a spam account. I made a series of legit edits to Yahoo! Music, LaunchCast, and LAUNCH Media before starting on this long project a few months ago. Other than that I'll just let the external references speak for themselves. -Eddroid (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve. The article is a mess and is in dire need of work, but there are many valid sources available for this. Think outside the box 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on company notability, they turn up all over the place for on demand tv and videoclips in the UK. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 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. — Scientizzle 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dogg Aaron[edit]

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

    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[edit]

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

    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]


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

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

    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. [31] 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]

    • 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[edit]

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

    Article fails to establish WP:N as either a DJ or a musician. Torc2 (talk) 06:34, 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[edit]

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

    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]

    • 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 DissidentTalk 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[edit]

    Leban Mohamed Nour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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[edit]

    Matthew Steven Blacklock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Most likely a hoax "...performed open heart surgery at age 5..." VivioFateFan (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[edit]

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

    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[edit]

    Nebraska Leadership Seminar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable seminar. Zero sources satisfying WP:RS attached ot the article. A quick google search [32] 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[edit]

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

    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[edit]

    Turing, Kenneth Alan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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[edit]

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

    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)[edit]

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

    Non-notable former mall in Florida, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:44, 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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Caldwell (programmer)[edit]

    Christopher Caldwell (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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"> [33] or <Caldwell NetDaemons> [34] yields a few articles, a directory of names, and SEC filings, but nothing that is substantially about the man himself.
    • <Caldwell "Monster Board"> [35] No related results except [36] 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 [37], 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 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 delete. Neil ☎ 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Futurama places[edit]

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

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

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

    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 | talkcont | 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]
    • 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]
    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... Stardust8212 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]
    • 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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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... Stardust8212 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! Stardust8212 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. Stardust8212 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. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Planet Express[edit]

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

    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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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.[edit]

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

    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]

    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. Pagrashtak 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[edit]

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

    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[edit]

    Push button click (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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[edit]

    List of Mortal Kombat arenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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]
    • 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]
    • 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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 27 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 CitrouillesTally-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]
    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). Pagrashtak 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[edit]

    Rice University Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Totally non-notable group. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 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 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[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Little Fighter 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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]

    • 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 [38] [39] 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[edit]

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

    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. —Travistalk 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[edit]

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

    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[edit]

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

    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

    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]


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

    Between the Beautifuls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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]
    • 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. 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[edit]

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

    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]

    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]


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

    List of Virgin Islands Creole phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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 Ƶ§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. Ƶ§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[edit]

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

    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 [40] 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 [41] 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[edit]

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

    Unreferebced short stub on a superecentenarian, containing nothing which could not be included in a 1-line list entry. Had been merged by me ([42], [43]) to the List of British supercentenarians, but restored[44] 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[edit]

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

    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 [45] and [46]]), 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]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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[edit]

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

    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 [47] [48] 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]
    • 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[edit]

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

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

    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]

    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-MeMyEarsMyMouth-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[edit]

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

    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]
    • 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[edit]

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

    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]

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

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

    Blatant neologism. Has applicability to only one locale. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 00:24, 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)[edit]

    Angel (Irish singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    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 (+)[edit]

    Half-Life (+) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The notability and very existence of "Madness Studios" is questionable, WP:CRYSTAL. VivioFateFan (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[edit]

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

    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. AecisBrievenbus 00:06, 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.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:202.76.162.34

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Voice Of The Streets (album)[edit]

    The Voice Of The Streets (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    future album that has no sources to prove existence. Will (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I have added a reference, this article should not be deleted. -Evasive Evasive101 (talk · contribs)
    • Keep. The Houston Chronicle is as reliable a source as you can get for a Houston artist. Also, because he has a major deal, it is notable. Tom Danson (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect for now to the artist, where the source might help. But just because he says that a new disc is in the making and that he wants "to move 100-200,000 copies the first week" is still no reason to have a separate article.--Tikiwont 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The source is enough to keep it for now; if the album doesn't materialize, we can revisit this. --Fang Aili talk 18:33, 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 Speedy Deleted (by another admin). kingboyk (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero Artistic Movement[edit]

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

    Little to no assertions of notability. No sources provided. External links section dominated by Youtube and Myspace. kingboyk (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete have tagged it for no assertion of notability. RMHED (talk) 18:57, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_27&oldid=1081101227"