Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Otto4711 (talk | contribs)
59,599 edits
afd nom
Stramash (talk | contribs)
17 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Stronge}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood in popular culture}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood in popular culture}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyrical Dreamz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyrical Dreamz}}

Revision as of 15:14, 21 August 2007

< August 20 August 22 >

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. PeaceNT 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stronge

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

Non notable. Being a knight doesn't make someone notable, neither do either of the positions he held. No non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. Stramash 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is becoming daft now, I thought all of this non notable baronet business had been sorted out, and even if there were the remotest case for this person being of interest or not, there certainly is not for his father [[Sir John Calvert Stronge For God's sake what is wrong with this place these days, we don't need these people unless they have done something to distinguish themselves. Giano 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very justified nomination but now greatly improved. It is a great pity, that as with the various members of the Arbithnot family, the only way that certain pages can ever hope to be improved is by nominating them here. Giano 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ignoring the conflict of interest. That is not one of the highest honours of the British Government, it us a "dip service gong" handed out routinely to diplomats going to posts where the host country will be offended if they are sent anyone without a title. Half the present day residents of Dolphin square have similar decorations. I see we have others of this "illustrious" family who fail to even achieve that. Giano 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "other" you refer to was an MP. --Counter-revolutionary 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God for that - and this one John Stronge? Giano 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'- I have no WP:COI. The nominator is apparently not a new user, no matter what his edit count suggests. With all assumption of good faith this seems odd. --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an ad hominem attack. I apologise if you see it as one.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable under Wikipedia's own guidelines. The nominator has it wrong as you must have done something notable in your life to be knighted in the first place. If being knighted is not notable, then what is its point? Christchurch 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK lets keep and ask "Counter-revolutionary" expand. Is there anything to add? The problem here is that certain editors are determined to have as many baronets as possible listed on the project. Now the reasons this is a problem is that they are sacrificing quantity for quality - and that damages the encyclopedia's reputation. I don't know if that is because they are unable to write a proper article, or there is so little to report on these nonentities, perhaps they feel akin to these people or maybe have a hidden agenda. I don't know. Whatever the answer Wikipedia is not a "phone book". These people need to learn how to write a proper useful page or give up! The reason for this being that I and quite a few others are sick of these daft sycophantic pages that achieve nothing but give their own relations a quick and very cheap thrill. Giano 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FGS don't be so facetious, do you truly imagine anyone gives a damn wether he was a baronet or a knight. Only to the English are these things so important. Just write a decent page explaining why he is notable. Giano 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is now expanded and sourced. He appears to be notable. --Bduke 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choess's arguments, and based on the expansion of sourced content in the article since nomination. --Stormie 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choess. It would have helped had this article been tagged as a stub in the first place, because it clearly had room for improvement, but it has now been expanded to the point where notability (per WP:N and WP:BIO) is clearly demonstrated and properly sourced, and there is eviently scope for further expansion.
    I'm also very disappointed to see some of the way this article is being assessed by some editors. The include-anyone-with-a-title lobby don't have support of the guidelines, but a diplomat at ambassador-level from a powerful nation will frequently have been a notable position, paticularly in the days before air travel. It's depressing to see that the deletionists' apparoach was not ask for more evidence of the significance of the diplomatic role, but to argue for deletion because of the largely irrelevant issue of the title (see Talk:Francis Stronge).
    I really hope that we are not going to find ourselves back in another long series of these sterile AFD debates, where the pro- and anti-title lobbies try to score points off each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choess. Clearly notable and multiple references Kernel Saunters 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Key position as ambassador to Chile at the outbreak of WWI, also during and after the Battle of Coronel. Galloglass 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The mere presence of Robin Hood, or a character who "aspires" to be Robin Hood, or who in the opinion of the editor who spots it may be in some way based on Robin Hood but lacks sourcing that says so, doesn't mean that the things bear any relationship to each other. Otto4711 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as a violation of WP:NOT. As pointed out, this list is a mishmash of adaptations of the Robin Hood story, characters supposedly based on Robin Hood, characters with Robin Hood like qualities, and even characters who have used the name Robin Hood with otherwise no connection to the archetypical character in question. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, though rewrite into a better organisation. This article now has references for overall notability of the topic. Per WP:N, it is not necessary to have sources for the notability of each individual item or sentence in an article. None the less, most of them can be found in reviews. Sourced, further sourceable, a topic everyone knows about. I note the nom. made no effort at all to look for even the most obvious sources--didn't even check Google/Google Scholar. (This is of course contrary to WP:Deletion policy and common sense.) Having a common cultural referent is a close connection. Some of these may not have a significant one. We of course do not nom for deletion articles that contain items which may individually not contribute to the article, we edit the article; before removing them, I'd want to do a literature search to see if there is a source for the significance any particular one. Even if characters merely use the name, they use it for a reason, and the critics may well have commented. I think that should satisfy all the objections given above by those people who have given reasons. Possibly 5% of WP articles have been edited to the level of detail demanded here, and I don't thing deleting the other 95% would improve the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, having a "common cultural referent" is not inherently an indicator of a close connection. I'm sorry, but as many times as you trot this particular pony out, it's still not true. I'm also curious to know how you know what I did or didn't do prior to nominating this article. Unless you're the pregnant girl in the cubicle next to me, I don't really think you're in a position to say. Otto4711 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the assumption that had you seen you wouldnt have nominated. I really did, the sources are so pertinent. DGG (talk)
well, there's Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture By Jeffrey S. Miller" [1] "John Drake, like Robin Hood and Lancelot of old, traveled from scenic locale to scenic locale, encountering and besting villains ranging from IRA terrorists ..." There's one academic author who thinks notability of RH in pop culture is a real topic. U Minnesota Press published it. DGG (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are once again making the faulty assumption that because something is mentioned in the same breath as something else that the two things must be related. The sentence you quote doesn't have anything to do with the supposed "notability of RH in popular culture." Otto4711 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what an IPC should be... except for the one instance of someone who aspires to be like Robin Hood, this is about the retellings of the classical story in 20th and 21st century films, books, etc. There are even more that I can think of that aren't on the list. No reason to delete this, simply because it uses the obscenity "in popular culture" Mandsford 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. Other "in popular culture" article editors should read this one and learn from it. Dbromage [Talk] 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the most part this is a decent article, I don't see the bulk of the references as being trivial or loosely associated. The music section could use a bit of work, but altogether it's not a bad or deletion-criteria article. Calgary 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both the article itself and the nomination seem to be based on a dichotomy between the archetypal figure and 'popular culture' interpretations or references. Such a distinction might be valid for subjects where one clear and factual topic is more or less accurately or trivially referenced or depicted in popular culture. But Robin Hood has always been a folk or popular tale being retold and modified from the beginning over the centuries, and almost always via some popular medium, be it ballad, tale, book or more recently film and TV. While it may be useful to distinguish between traditional and modern versions or different mediums in organizing the material, we shouldn't split-off and throw away some of it in bulk, but edit and maybe rename or merge considering also Cultural depictions of Robin Hood and the disambiguation page.--Tikiwont 09:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework This is one of the few articles of this type which is worth retaining. Dominictimms 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing worth reworking, and riddled with OR. The references at the bottom seem to have no actual connection with the article body. This idea is strengthened by the fact that there are no footnotes, and rather than a prose description of the evolution and significance of depictions, we just get a list of trivial references. --Eyrian 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
a few of the ones cited here surely do, such as the one by Dbromage above. They show the article is sourceable; it doesn't have to be finished to be kept. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I continue to AGF, but I am getting a little impatient. The arguments of the deletors start out by saying there are no sources for the specifics or the general topic being notable. The sources are presented, and they say they are not relevant. Obviously relevant and specific sources are presented, and the response is that they are not in the article yet. I think it is clear that the objection is not to specific content or specific articles. If it were to specific content or references, then the articles would just be being edited, not brought to AfD in the first place. if it were to were to specific articles, the weakest only would be nominated. The only time when the good and the bad are all successively nominated is when the agenda is to destroy the topic. Otherwise, the nominations for the articles where the sourcing during the AfD was shown to be sufficient would be withdrawn. Those bringing the articles here are for the most part just deletors--they have no interest in improving the articles. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've sourced nothing. Inserting a few references from which the article is not actually based doesn't constitute sourcing. --Eyrian 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Robin Hood is iconic - there will be references and commentray on its depiction out there, just probably in a library rather than online. Article quality per se is no grounds for deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge the important ones back into Robin Hood Way too many trivial mentions + OR to keep this one Corpx 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure, Robin Hood is very popular and important, but the last thing this place needs is more cruft about mentions in other media. Just because a subject is notable in itself does not mean that articles with trivial mentions of said subject are appropriate. There have been pages deleted for subjects far more notable. Dannycali 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and chainsaw away the unsourceable stuff. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this and several other articles on albums by the same artist. None of them assert notability (speedy category a7). NawlinWiki 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical Dreamz

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

Non notable album, artists and no reliable sources found on google. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C++ examples

C++ examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a list of examples of code in the programming language C++. It seems to be the sort of software guide prohibited by WP:NOT#GUIDE, no pages in article space link to it, and the main C++ page already includes embedded examples of code. As such, I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. After !voting here, I almost proposed an AfD for Fortran code examples, but I actually think moving the examples from the Fortran article into a separate page worked out very well. The examples there are more fully developed and demonstrate the historical development of the language. The idea of creating a separate page of C++ examples might not have been that bad originally, if it had been followed through, but it doesn't fit with the current C++ main article. --MediaMangler 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is really nothing there of value, which isn't covered better and more thoroughly in C++ and C. In fact, most of the examples appear to be for what are basically C functionality, only with output through streaming. It is also inconsistent with the usage of '\n' and std::endl. IMHO, an article specifically about C++ examples should cover examples that show how it's substantially different from C, with a link to C code examples. If the C++ article grows to have many good examples, it would make sense to split off the article, but now is not the time yet. I would have said delete and redirect, but there is really nothing that links there in the first place. --Pekaje 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki & Delete To wikibooks, if deemed worthy. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing useful on it as Pekaje have said. WP is not a guide, whereas Wikibook already have its bit on C++. KTC —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
  • delete. kate. 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a technical help manual. Burntsauce 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic; but do the actual deletion after moving some useful code examples to relevant articles. -- Taku 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three section staff in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - directory of unassociated items that have nothing in common beyond happening to have included a particular weapon. This tells us nothing about the weapon, nothing about the fiction from which use of the weapon was included, nothing about any relationship between the items (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merger of any of this information to any other article as it is just as trivial as part of another article as it is as a standalone. Otto4711 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of rock and roll

Gods of rock and roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If this isn't original research I don't know what is. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Shafer (baseball player)

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

This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV overturned this closure, with the consent of the deleting admin. Still, weak delete given notability concerns for minor-league ballplayers. Xoloz 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: several votes by sockpuppets stricken out. Voice-of-All 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a couple of users not everyone Jaranda wat's sup 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a mid-sized fish in a small pond still means you're swimming in a small pond. This being an encyclopedia and not the Directory of Everyone Who's Ever Been Paid to Play Baseball means it should have some minimal standards, and minor leaguers ain't it -- and that's on top of the sourcing problems. --Calton | Talk 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton's well-made point above, with its implications for a sensible reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (copying per the DRV) The minor leagues while they are proffesional, it's not the highest league there is for baseball and there is consensus that minor leaguers aren't notable. Shafer won't be in the majors for a while (if ever) looking at this link currently a earned run average of over 7.50 which means horrible even for the minor leagues. Also there is active discussion in the WP:BIO talk pages over the situation as tons of minor-leaguers been deleted in AFD before, and it may go to the Village Pump as well per User:DGG suggestion there. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So, you're saying he isn't notable, and to prove your point you're directing me to a published secondary source that is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject which discusses him. That happens to be WP:BIO's first and foremost "Criteria for notability of people". Along with the criteria for athletes that they play in a fully professional league, this alone should be enough for his inclusion. Add into this the fact that he is discussed in multiple reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources and that he further distinguished himself by making an all-star team, and there should be no question that he should be included. Kinston eagle 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have every minor-leaguer, not only him, you obviously have WP:BIAS for minor leaguers, if this article gets kept, that doesn't give you permission to restore the whole Kinston Indians minor-league baseball team articles which was validly deleted in AFD just to let you know. Again like I mentioned in the DRV, that is borderline at best for meeting WP:BIO guidelines and there is discussion on talk. Jaranda wat's sup 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was you and Kinston that I saw in the talk, not concensus, Kinston obviously has a WP:BIAS for minor league players, and many of his articles on them were deleted in AFD. So it's basiclly you. Jaranda wat's sup 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I have never had an article to be deleted. All those articles on Kinston Indians players were written by other individuals. Furthermore, I do not have a bias for minor league players, I have a bias for following the rules and the guidelines set out in WP:BIO which clearly allow all athletes who have played in fully professional leagues to be included. If you don't like the guidelines, work on changing those. Kinston eagle 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaranda, you must not have read through that thread... several other people in that discussion were in general agreement on the issue... Perhaps you should address your own bias on this issue. Spanneraol 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok three users instead of two, one of whom is keep all minor leaguers who ever played, which that was quickly rejected still doesn't indicate consensus, I don't really have a bias with this as much as Kinston though, I just don't think they are notable, unless they are a top prospect, which he isn't. Jaranda wat's sup 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see this discussion openned up again also. I would also like to see the a discussion run at the same time on the notability of players in lower tier soccer (european football) leagues. Sasha Callahan 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The whole question of whether he's a notable minor-league player is fairly mute in this case. He does not appear to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. That is a fundamental requirement of notability that applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether he's a minor-league player, major-league player, or even if he's the 154th person to walk on The Moon. If he does not meet the significant coverage in reliable source requirements layed out by WP:N, then he is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." In my opinion, the sources cited fit this definition quite well. Kinston eagle 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources are you referring to? The 2 sources in the References section of the article only give him a passing mention, as being a member of the team. That's hardly significant coverage. If they had a whole paragraph about him that would be significant coverage, but a passing mention isn't. The two links in the External links section are not suitale for assessing notability, as they are not independent enough. —gorgan_almighty 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete view - WP:N is the over-riding guideline and the article fails to include substantial, reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Bridgeplayer
The article contains more sources than many baseball player articles, whose primary sources are usually just the baseball-reference site. Spanneraol 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know anything about this particular book, but the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference seems to be the only one that possibly offers significant coverage in a secondary source publication. In other words, it's the only reference currently in the article that might possibly be able to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this discussion happening? Spanneraol 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per notability - --Tom 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BASEBALL --Truest blue 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original Delete argument was (and seemingly still is) founded in both the inaccurate assertion that WP:BASEBALL established specific grounds under which minor-leagues are deemed not notable, and upon the shaky premise that any such would trump WP:BIO's unambiguous phrasing. In fact, WP:BASEBALL has nothing more solid than "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO," nor does WP:BIO support the popular fallacy that fully professional leagues are non-notable if they are not premier national leagues. I applaud WP:BASEBALL members for wishing to tighten up their criteria, as other sports Wikiprojects have accomplished, but do not support them using AfD as a stalking horse to bypass the need to establish -- and respect -- their own project's consensus ... a consensus they have not formally reached.  Ravenswing  14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable secondary sources are required to establish notability. An argument of reliable secondary sources therefore IS an argument of notability. Several people have argued from the perspective that minor-league players are inherently un-notable, but WP:N takes precedence in defining what is notable or not. If there are non-trivial reliable secondary sources attributed to the article subject, then it is notable. If there aren't, then it isn't. The only contender for a non-trivial reliable secondary source in this article is the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference, but I don't know enough about that book to determine if it qualifies. In my opinion, arguments for and against this article should now centre on the suitability of that one source, since no one has found any others. —gorgan_almighty 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor is WP:BASEBALL as an argruement though, and of course should be discounted, same with the WP:BASEBALL protest votes as well, like several of them above. The issue is that it's sooooooo borderline in WP:BIO that it really doesn't include them, as some people consider them to not be the highest proffesional league out there, there are tons of AFDs on minor leaguers that ended up as delete, this minor leaguer is no different than the rest. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, now the admin who deleted this article in the first gets to decide which keep votes are simply protest votes. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that it is not the highest professional league has no bearing in this matter. WP:BIO only requires that they play in a "fully" professional league, not the "highest" professional league. All Minor Leaguers play in a "fully" professional league, as the minors are fully professional. Smashville 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is going to be discussion in the proposed athletes notabilty page, there is some comments in WP:BIO talk page though. I removed the WP:BASEBALL guidelines. I have to go to class so I'll comment in a few hours Jaranda wat's sup 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a discussion exists about something does not make it a policy. Smashville 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPnotebook

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

Prod contested with no reference to original concern. Subject is an online medical reference resource, article shows no sign of compliance with WP:WEB. There is an IMDb style "Foo on GPNotebook" template and google has plenty hits, but... sources? Deiz talk 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this article is not beyond saving, doing a Google search of GPnotebook with the additional fields in turn of "The Lancet", "BMA" or "The Medical Times" has thrown up some possible sources, including a description of the site on the page of a British University with a School of Medicine. I'm sure that farther sifting of the Google results in this vein will give us all the sources we need.KTo288 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found an article from a reputable source (BMJ with history and details of the site.KTo288 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as article fails notability criteria WP:ORG per Deiz, despite it being potentially a useful source of medical information. I have added the link to the links section in the article Diagnosis. --Gavin Collins 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:ORG states "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." the British Medical Journal is as reliable and as independent as they come and the [article] (page s77) I placed on the articles discussion page has a history and overiew of the site. However I'm rather new to wiki lawyering so I don't know what the per Deiz dictum is however I've been told that on AfD's there is no assumption of precedence but every article must be judged on its own merits. By my reading of the WP:ORG it is notable enough for inclusion, and the are enough available attributable sources to support the article as it stands. That it is a stub now is no reason to delete as it can be expanded, with enough sources at present to at least a section on its founders, history and use of technology KTo288 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. [Although not necessarily as reliable as certain other medical internet sites.] :-) Axl 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense (rock band allegedly founded in 1787). NawlinWiki 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Murphy Boys

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

Over the top band bio, fails notability, somewhat of a tongue in cheek WP:HOAX. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (requested by author). PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Aznaran

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

More Scientologycruft, fails WP:BIO. This non-notable person did some affidavits in court appearances (and subsequently went back and recanted them). Gets 155 unique Ghits and most of them are blogs, personal homepages, and junk. wikipediatrix 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but personal homepages aren't valid sources per WP:RS and WP:V. wikipediatrix 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment 'a sworn affidavit reproduced on a personal homepage or personal website is another matter entirely. Viz, all the cites of affidavits and records sourced at Operation Clambake, in WIkiarticles here. Operation Clambake is a personal website.S. M. Sullivan 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
depends what the records are. I don't think a person's affidavit is not intrinsically reliable unless the facts have been relied upon in a judgment or reported in a RS. DGG (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--WP:Notable says a person may be notable if they made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their field.

Or, they may be notable if they are regarded as an important figure or are widely cited by their peers or successors. Vicki Aznaran was President of RTC and Inspector General, the same post held by David Miscavige, immediately before DM's rise. She left the CoS and sued the church for 70 mill. She was considered an expert witness by church critics involved in litigation against the church, and was used as such by them for several years. Did she suddenly become 'not notable' when she recanted, despite having been very notable and worthy of credence before? Or is the real problem that she's an unperson who must never be mentioned because of the recant? S. M. Sullivan 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. For some reason, last night User:S. M. Sullivan blanked out the article and its talk page (despite "do not blank the article" being written in plain English on the AfD tag) and put up the db-author speedy delete tag, resulting in its deletion. Rather bizarre thing to do for someone who had just voted to keep the article, but I suppose that, as they say, is that. wikipediatrix 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that this list is too trivial. Proponents for keeping this information do argue that this information can be found in reliable sources and may be useful for comparison purposes; however, the counterargument of mentioning any germane changes in the season article(s) seems to be more appropriate in light of avoiding indiscriminate information, since there will be more context in those articles, and, as was pointed out, not all roster changes are noteworthy. — TKD::Talk 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups

AfDs for this article:
List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The previous AfD for this list was closed as "no consensus"; DRV overturned this closure, but the consensus was too narrow to delete the article outright from DRV. The article is thus relisted. Delete, as an unencyclopedic list. Xoloz 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources is the same from every line-up of every team especially if there is a key injury, etc. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above could be an argument to have a separate article on just about every roster move for every team for every season. And a few articles on roster moves that don't get made.--Fabrictramp 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, mostly I agree with Jreferee's point. Maybe you don't think opening day lineups matter but it's not your opinion that matters, it's whether the article's subject is considered notable and verifiable by reliable sources. The information is of course verifiable, and for whatever reason it is considered notable as well by many sources (if Opening Day itself is considered notable, then surely "who plays on Opening Day" is notable as well). To give an analogy - we don't have an article on the UEFA Cup semi-final because the UEFA Cup semifinal is not considered notable. Therefore, if someone created an article on UEFA Cup semi-final lineups then I would vote for deletion. However, we do have an article on the UEFA Cup finals because those are notable, and in addition each year has its own article. Now obviously, this (creating an article for each year) is unnecessary for Opening Day because the result of the game itself has little significance, but the lineups do and therefore an article about those is fine. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Opening Day is about the general concept of Opening Day. If we had an article about each Opening Day game by each team, those would be a good place to put the lineups per your argument. But we don't and likely never will. The actual particular Opening Day game by each team is simply not that important except as the ceremonial opening of the season. The President shows up, there's a little extra pomp and circumstance, etc. The lineup and even the outcome of the actual game get forgotten in it all. If anything, you could make a case to say that the actual game #1 is the least important and notable each season. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, opening day is something throughout the entire league. It's not something that only the Dodgers celebrate. And in fact, there is only one opening day, and on that day there is almost always just one game. This year it was the Mets and Cardinals. Every team has a first game, but only two teams play on the league's opening day. Ksy92003(talk) 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • wknight, if it is the case that the lineups get "forgotten", then why do the teams themselves keep lists of all their opening day starting lineups in the team media guides? Obviously the teams consider them to be worth remembering and worth a notice. Spanneraol 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So just because somebody thinks it's important, that gives it instant notability? I think my kitchen sink is important, but is my kitchen sink instantly notable because of that? For every single thing out there, at least one person thinks it's important, so to say that "well, they think it's important. So should we" as a reason for having an article isn't valid. Ksy92003(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, by that method.. just cause YOU think it isn't important doesn't mean it isn't worth having an article on it.. which seems to be your main argument. I've indentified a number of sources that show it as being important.. but obviously the opinion of major league baseball doesn't matter compared to your feelings that it is unimportant. Spanneraol 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Importance and notability are two entirely different things. Importance is how necessary something is. Notability is how noteworthy something is. I never said the list wasn't important. I said it's not notable enough and doesn't mean a whole lot. Keep your facts straight. Ksy92003(talk) 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the last AFD and the DRV, also while it isn't a copyvio as simple stats, the formatting is and we are ripping off baseball-reference info, and that's very bad, we are not them, and of course we don't want that website to go out of service, we are already doing it for the seasons articles and that's enough. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I gave last time. Definitely meets the definitions of WP:LISTCRUFT. If the information for a particular opening day is important, it can be in an article on that season. If the table is important, all that's needed is a link to baseball-reference. --Fabrictramp 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DRV - viz: listcruft. Eusebeus 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being so narrow a topic as to be utterly trivial. VanTucky (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT - Lists of indiscriminate information. Also, far too trivial per VanTucky Giggy Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- trivial listcruft that's just plain ridiculous; how exactly is a starting lineup for an opening day notable enough to have its own article? The topic is to narrow. --Boricuaeddie 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is clearly trivia and an indiscriminate list, violating the spirit of WP:NOT (though I don't think WP:NOT is usually a useful policy to quote in deletion discussions, as it's rather vague and hard to apply to specific articles). I admit I don't know a great deal about baseball, but the reasoning of the Keep !voters above seems flawed. Evidently both the Los Angeles Dodgers and the concept of Opening Day are notable; no one is disputing that. But notability is not inherited, and even where a topic is notable, we don't include all trivial information about that topic. This list of lineups may be important to baseball fans, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with fixed standards of notability, which this list does not meet. WaltonOne 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my thoughts in the first AfD:
"Opening day lineups are definitely more significant than any other game's lineups. As has been stated earlier, there is a significance to being a team's starting pitcher on opening day and the lineups are introduced much like they are at the All-Star game and the first game of League Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series serieses. I think it's fascinating to see the progression of a team's opening day lineup through the years. I'd also like to see information added to the article answering questions such as "Why did Mariano Duncan start in place of Steve Sax at 2B in 1985?". I believe that info would improve the article."
X96lee15 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The opening day roster is no more notable or significant than those of the next 161 games that come after it. This is the epitome of trivia, and the WP:ILIKEITs are not enough to keep this around. Tarc 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape: Human Cargo

Escape: Human Cargo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Non-notable made for TV movie with little to mark it out for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) WebHamster 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in lacking reviews etc to establish notability Corpx 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A movie nobody watched, including the author of the article!Mandsford 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Its only claim to notability is IMDB, but even there it has no synopsis and only one review, and WP:FILM says clearly that one of the guidelines is "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." it has, to the best of my knowledge, only received the one review. Edit: That review was a "mini-review", so it shouldn't even count. Neranei (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Duddy

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

Contested prod. I fail to see how this special effects technician meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability and no sources. NawlinWiki 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbears

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

Not notable, written like advertisment. Oysterguitarist 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Estulin

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

non-notable conspiracy theorist; lack of independent reliable sources Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia: the tragic loss

Columbia: the tragic loss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This small documentary film is not in wide release and fails WP:MOVIE. It has one review that mentions a premiere in March, but the other cited source claims it will review the film once it has been screened at 'the American premiere' it will host at some unspecified time. Finally, the article is more about the loss of Columbia and criticism of NASA, for which we already have articles. KrakatoaKatie 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPS SAMP

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

Contested PROD. This series (primarily, but apparently not exclusively, YouTube videos) is unsourced. Its only assertions of any significance are YouTube/website views, which aren't an indicator that it passes WP:WEB or WP:N. The only reasons that this wasn't, in my opinion, speedily deletable by criterion A7 are that it seems not to be entirely web-based (the lead claims DVD distribution) and that the YouTube popularity could be construed as an assertion of significance. Still, with only 34 Google hits, none of which seem to be reliable third-party sources, I don't think that there's enough reliable, independent content out there currently for an article. — TKD::Talk 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA rather than WP:SPAM? Deiz talk 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; the reason being is that a SPA created to push a Youtube "series" by a "production company" likely has a corporate goal attached to it.  Ravenswing  20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Playboy Playmates

Chronological List of Playboy Playmates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a rehash of a larger and more thorough listing that are in the pages entitled: List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, 60-69, and so on. There's no point to having this page in addition to those others. Dismas|(talk) 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that this data doesn't belong here at all. I'm just saying it's duplicative when we have the other articles. Dismas|(talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Nothing said in the nomination makes a case for deleting this nicely formatted index page. The playmate of the month is somewhat distinct from a list of all the people featured in the magazine. The list is self-referencing: to verify any given entry, all that must be done is to consult the issue at issue. Hostility to Playboy magazine is not grounds for deleting anything. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hostility? If you looked at my edits or the articles I've started, you'd see I'm not hostile towards Playboy or porn in general. The page is nicely formatted but it's a rehash of info that is already here and already in chrono order. Dismas|(talk) 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad - I was responding more to an comment that appears directly below this, and which seeks to label something as "trivia", but that may be a bad edit to the AfD page itself, or not belong to this one. It doesn't appear on this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more user friendly than the other lists, catering for anyone who wants the basic facts (who, when) without any clutter. Brandon97 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. However, the names of the months must be translated. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear organizational value here, akin to that of the US program schedules. I would honestly rather look at this page than the other lists, though I do see they have other things. But the concept of a Playboy Playmate is sufficiently distinct that it can merit identification. Given that it's a month-by-month thing, this would seem to be the logical way to organize it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. wikipediatrix 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. As nom says, this list is replicated in its entirety in the more complete "Lists of" lists, which are likewise organized into a table. "We like this table better aesthetically" is a poor reason to keep a duplicate article.  Ravenswing  16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I feel it's a great reason to keep an article of this type. The value of data is shaped by how accessible it is, and in this case, I think it's quite a bit higher in this format than the other. The fact is, sometimes redundancy is a part of presentation, and given that there's no real cost to having another page, but a real advantage, I find the argument of duplication warranting deletion lacking. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that issue would be addressed with regards to the other pages as well, not simply this one. However, I think you're perhaps ignoring the notability of being a Playboy playmate, which is actually a fairly notable bit of status. At least as much as being a pro sports player. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a playmate is notable, but I dont think the same is true for a list of them. This would be like documenting the Big XII offensive player of the week since they started handing out the award. Corpx 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, being a Playboy Playmate is clearly far more notable than the Big 12 player of the week. It's closer to the Heismans or Superbowl MVPs. Plenty of women are identified as a Playboy Playmate in news articles, there's enough books and videos on them to show that there is an economic impact to the designation as well. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would compare Playmate of the Year to the Heisman (we already have a list of playmate of the year) Corpx 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People get identified for *years* afterwards as a Playmate, I'd even say it's a reasonable criteria for notability in a person, much like playing in a pro-sport. I don't know that the same is true for Big XII offensive player of the week. But to be honest, I don't even know who gives out that award, and I really don't care. If you, or somebody else wants to develop a page about that, feel free, I've got no objection. I'd still say that it's more accurate to compare being a Playboy Playmate to something like winning the Heisman or a Superbowl MVP. Of course, if you win one of those you're likely notable for other things, but that's often true of being a Playmate. Doesn't mean this isn't a useful table. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Playboy playmate is no different than being featured on the cover or SI or TSN or ESPN the mag, or PEOPLE or any other magazine. While being a playmate is indeed notable recgonition, I do not think its any more notable than the other magazines Corpx 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is quite different. Being on the cover of those magazines isn't used to identify the person (though it *could* be used to demonstrate notability since it is recognition by a third-party and usually includes in-depth coverage within the magazine), while being a Playboy Playmate, well...it is an identifier that can be considered as defining enough to merit an article on the person. Much like say, being on the Yankees baseball team. This is an article which takes existing data about a given recognition and collates it. And as far as it goes, the articles on Sports Illustrated and The Swimsuit issue do go into some depth as regarding the covers. Whether or not they should go into further detail, I don't know, but I wouldn't object to it out of hand. I don't know about the other magazines to even guess whether or not there's anything to their covers, but their articles aren't exactly that good. Could use some improvement in a lot of ways. OTOH, there is List of athletes on Wheaties boxes which is somewhat similar in nature. I wouldn't mind a Chronological version of it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think that should be deleted too. I think the frequency of crowning the title is my problem. Somebody who is crowned every month is not worth documenting here. The same to the Wheaties box where it the frequency is also pretty high. Corpx 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a personal objection, and one where I disagree. Every month being too often but once a year not being too often is quite arbitrary. It's the notability of the title/award/whatever you call it that matters. Not the frequency. I sense that at least part of your objection is to the number of awards, but let's consider pro sports. Being a member of the Yankees, or the Titans, or whoever is sufficient grounds for an article. Do any of those teams add more than 12 players a year? I don't know, but I think it's quite possible. But hey, you want to nominate the Wheaties page for deletion, go right ahead. I suspect there won't be a consensus for its deletion. [10]. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the plethora of third-party sources noting the various teams and individuals being on the box won't matter. FrozenPurpleCube 04:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we have a list of Players signed by Yankees or Player transactions by the Titans. The frequency is what is making it pointless to maintain this list. Corpx 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once a month is hardly so frequent an updating as to make it pointless as it's hardly difficult. And I don't know how often the Template:New York Yankees roster is updated, it looks like there's a regular pattern of edits, but some may just be housekeeping. (And not to mention, but there's more than one MLB team to update) However 2007 New York Yankees season and the thousands of other sports with listing by seasons are clearly more frequent. I see a game every day this week. And there are lots of others. Portal:Current events requires frequent updates to stay current, don't you think? Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing, even if timeliness were a real concern in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Yankees article and it does not look like it lists (or mentions) every time somebody is sent down or called up, or the "transaction log" as they call it. Something similar would be the NFL Rookie of the Week or any other award that's crowed with such frequency. Corpx 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you need to look more closely at the template itself. Seems to me that it's meant to be kept up to date. Just like the season article is meant to be kept up to date. Thus your argument doesn't seem to be based on sound objections where there are clearly examples of frequent updating in existence.. I don't know that there's any particular notice given to being an NFL Rookie of the Week that compares to being a Playboy Playmate. Especially since any NFL player has an article by default simply by playing in the NFL. FrozenPurpleCube 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The schedule in the season article is kept because the season as a whole is worthy of coverage. If New York Yankees 2006-07 Schedule existed, I would also want it deleted. Corpx 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would I, because there's no overlap that way in Baseball seasons. It starts in the spring and ends in the fall, unlike other sports which start in the fall and end in the winter of the next year or even the spring. But you *really* need to look at 2007 New York Yankees season. You are clearly missing something. Did you not read down the page? FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I think this is a helpful concentration of the information found in other articles. I have yet to see any other articles with which this is an exact duplicate. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Context is easily addable and a lack of said context is not a reason for deletion. And I see nothing in WP:NOT#DIR that explicitly prohibits pages of tabular data, in fact, WP:NOT#DIR (1) says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.". This page is exactly that. And I continue to point out, that this list collects information in a more useful form than found elsewhere. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument for duplication being valid. If I'm looking for who was a Playmate for a given month in 10 separate years, I can look at this page, or I can what, look at a 3-4 others? Which is more effective? FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument of sorts. Yes, I'm sure that there might be someone out there with a burning desire to see a table where one can easily see every November Playmate in history. There could also be someone out there with a burning desire to pick out every Asian playmate from a one-stop chart, but that bit of trivia isn't reflected either.  Ravenswing  18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really do find it less than helpful when people just throw out Wikilinks without substantiating the connection to the situation. What exactly are you claiming is OCE about my statement? Are you arguing that there is no notability to being a Playboy Playmate? Is there some reason you're not seeing what's helpful about a month-by-month listing? And as far as mentioning ethnicity goes, that may or may not merit coverage in some form, however, that's a different discussion than this one, which is about representing in tabular form the existing information as to Playboy Playmates. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is what others have said: this list is duplicated in its every detail in other articles. Those other articles even have the exact same tabular style as this one. It just is arranged in a grid rather than in columns. I have argued nothing else, nor has anyone else, and your suggestions (now several times repeated) that the popularity of Playmates are at issue or that people don't see what is helpful about a month-by-month listing (which already exists) are at best straw-man arguments.  Ravenswing  19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree that the duplication is a problem. They don't provide the same factoring that this page does by condensing the information on one page. This is a more convenient way to do it. Redundancy is not a bad thing. And in any case, I did see that Corpx did express some concerns about notability, as well as a concern about updating it. Pardon me for discussing those concerns. And your remark wasn't clear as to what you meant, thus I asked for clarification. If all you're concerned about is the duplication concern, then see my existing reply. Redundancy is not a problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid deletion reason, since this isn't a developmental article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:Trivia. Apparently I have to do this myself since the nominator of the article has got himself banned for vandalism. If I can make one caveat it is that there is a public hygine issue here, it seems this kind of cruft has to go somewhere or it'll leak back out onto the main article. It might be better if there was a harmless refuse pit it could be buried in. Twospoonfuls 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it should have its own page. Dannycali 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Style

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

I found only one substantiable claim towards WP:MUSIC for this artist, namely on his homepage: He claims that he made it to the "Billboard country top 40" (sic). I actually can't figure out what chart he is precisely referring to; Billboard has many, and certainly not all of them imply notability. Also, the Billboard web site lists his discography, but does not show any charted hits for him [11]. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, since I am not familiar with the US music charts, but to me he seems non-notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Peach

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If individual albums are demonstrably notable, then pages can be created on them. However, a discography as suggested by WP:MUSTARD may consist of album names only, as are already listed at Harvest (band), and the general consensus seems to be against a standalone detailed track listing etc. MastCell Talk 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest discography

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

This is a discography for a Christian band. The band article has essentially one editor, User:Jamielang77. This discography has one editor, User:Jamielang77. There are very few inbound links for Harvest (band), all added by User:Jamielang77. User:Jamielang77 has some tens of edits, all to Harvest (band), adding links to that band from other articles, and adding this discography. In short, then, this is creeping fandom. This article is entirely unnecessary, adding a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified. Cruftbane 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
For reference: I am the creator of the article.
User:Cruftbane failed to note that this is a notable Christian band, as established in the Harvest article's recent AFD discussion.
WP:MUSTARD states that "Pages on performers should have discography sections."
A comment that was made before in the Harvest article's peer review is that the article reads like a discography, instead of like an encyclopedia article, if the full discography section is included. I feel that the creation of this discography page helps to reduce the size of the main article, while still providing valuable information.
As shown by WP:MUSTARD alone, the discography article is not "entirely unnecessary" and does not add "a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified."
Jamie L.talk 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a band is notable enough for an article, then that band's discography is as well, especially if that discography would make the main article excessively long if it was placed there. wikipediatrix 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. Indeed, pages on performers should have discography sections. I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated. As it happens, putting this in the main band article would not make it excessively long, and as a group that disbanded twelve years ago, it isn't as if much more is likely to be written.  RGTraynor  16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: the statement "I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated," there is the statement in WP:MUSTARD's discography section that "If a simple system cannot accommodate an artist's entire discography, a subpage (preferably titled "<Bandname> discography") should be created using summary style."
Jamie L.talk 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: True enough. What do you fancy there is about this band's discography that can't be accommodated by a simple system ... for instance, the one that comprises the article under AfD discussion?  RGTraynor  20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What constitutes a complex discography? Is it one with more information re: the label, producer, band members, album histories, etc.? I can provide some of this information for most of the albums and would like to for the remainder. In other words, can I be given the chance to expand this article? I only created it last week. As it stands now, though, I don't think it would be too hard to simplify it. Jamie L.talk 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: the band not being notable enough for every track on every album to be listed. I've been comparing the discography to the discography of the featured article Slayer. I notice that Slayer's discography does include track listings. Obviously they are a more popular band; but it brings me to my question: at what point is a band "notable enough" to include the track listings with their albums? I would think this track information to be useful, especially on harder to find albums. Jamie L.talk 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I think, as a rule of thumb, if an album merits a page of its own, the track listing is justified in a discography. There's a big grey area, but none of the albums we're discussing are notable enough for a track listing. Also, being useful to fans of the band does not justify inclusion, per WP:NOT. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Please see the album criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It states that "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I think it's safe to conclude that if information re: the album's history, label, producer, units sold, etc. could be provided, and if the band was notable, then it would be alright for the album to have its own page, as well as having a separate discography for the albums. Additionally, I wasn't saying that the track information would only be useful to fans; but also to those researching the band (e.g., those individuals researching charted Christian music of Harvest's era). Jamie L.talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discography is significant to warrant an individual article.--JForget 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under the assumption that it's not one of the all time great bands, a guess I make because not a single one of their albums is considered notable in WP. For a separate discography for albums that are barely notable themselves seems absurd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. 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." So far, I know that Harvest's albums "It's Alright Now" and "Only the Overcomers" have received such coverage. I'm sure that more of their albums have as well; but I have yet to do the research. Jamie L.talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POLI-SCI.187

POLI-SCI.187 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

please evaluate against WP:MUSIC, I believe that is does not pass this test --Xorkl000 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article about series. Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Instinct for Murder

An Instinct for Murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article on one of the nine episodes made of the TV series Star Cops. This is a minor topic that does not require a separate article for each episode made. The article itself consists of little more than a plot summary and there is not much scope for expansion due to the limited number of potential sources related to this subject. I see no reason why any significant points pertaining to this episode cannot be incorporated into the main Star Cops article where better context can be given to them. On the grounds that it contravenes WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY, I propose it should be deleted. Joe King 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no longstanding tradition that individual episodes are notable. I could pull up lots of examples AFDs of this Corpx 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no problem with articles for individual episodes of series when there are a large number of significant books, articles, websites etc. written for them that can be used as sources such as with, say, Doctor Who or Star Trek or The Simpsons or even short-lived series like The Prisoner or Firefly but having articles for every episode of every TV show is plainly ridiculous; you wouldn't, for instance, allow articles for each of the 6,000+ episodes of Coronation Street even though it must be one of the most important television articles on Wikipedia. As I've said, there are precious few sources available relating to Star Cops, maybe two websites worth a damn and about half a dozen magazine articles. So, where is the material to give the real world context for this article to come from? - Joe King 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JuaNaxxxo

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

Musician autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His only singles have been out in places like the Virgin Islands. He's not remotely notable. Plus, the only sources are LastFM and Myspace. Waste of time article. Porterjoh 11:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly meets - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. - of WP:Music. However no sources are cited. Additionaly I doubt it meets WP:N - An artist without a real website and only MySpace to show these days? 1redrun 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horton's law

Horton's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cannot find anything to suggest such a term exists, no sources, when do a google search [14] only reference is to a Horton's law of stream lengths not this article's topic Davewild 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leedsmeup

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

Non-notable and defunct website. (Disputed speedy.) -- RHaworth 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luchesi authorship controversy

Luchesi authorship controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Contested {{prod}}. This is a non-notable fringe theory. No case is made in the article about why readers should think the theory is notable. Just listening to the works will convince anyone who knows a bit about music that this theory's claim that Luchesi wrote Mozart's Symphonies nos. 39, 40, 41 and Haydn's London Symphonies is unlikely. RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Non-notable crankery. --Folantin 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "other views" section even says that other scholars haven't paid attention to Taboga's views. If no reliable source has discussed the theory except its creator, it surely fails Wikipedia:Notability. EALacey 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EALacey. I would also submit that this article fails even to establish the existence of the subject: if nobody has disagreed with Taboga's claims, how can there be a controversy? Jakew 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a fringe theory, and a silly one at that. It has not gained wide acceptance or even notice, and does not merit an article. Merge any relevant content to Luchesi's article and perhaps redirect it there. And merge any other content someone can't stand to lose to "Ridiculous nationalist notions" or something. Mak (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rantings of one deranged fringecrank do not an encyclopedia article make. Delete this noxious nationalist nonsense ASAP. Moreschi Talk 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's one person's fringe theory, and has received no mainstream attention. Significantly, the current article on Luchesi in the comprehensive New Grove makes no mention of this, even though its promoter has been active for many years. Antandrus (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has all the hallmarks of a fringe theory, indeed a conspiracy theory (nationalism, paranoia, obliviousness to counterevidence). However, the theory has been published in a scholarly journal -- see the Talk page for the link. My only discomfort with deleting is my belief that, in general, the scholarly literature should trump the views of Wikipedia editors. But I wouldn't much mind making an exception in this particular case. Opus33 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point here is that we just can't write a whole article about one publication in one journal that no one else has even taken any notice of, as it's so ridiculous - that simply doesn't pass the criterion for notability. Moreschi Talk 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might warrant a single line in the Luchesi page because of the published journal (not a particularly important journal even discounting the astounding discovery). This whole mess falls under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claims are so incredible that a single journal (one which rarely publishes and then generally runs conference proceedings on Catalan topics) does not count as an exceptional source. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones 4

AfDs for this article:
Indiana Jones 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Iks33 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bede RFC

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

Delete. Unreferenced, and not notable. RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux

Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the deletion policy page:Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article has been almost duplicated from Comparison of Windows and Linux with very little topic specific info. These thoughts can even be found on the page's discussion page. Acetylcholine 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political change

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

Page earlier deleted. Recreated with near-empty content. Concept per se does not exist as a subfield of political science; all political science is the study of political change. Please note that a google test obviously will not work for something which is a common phrase but a non-notable subject for an article. In the absence of a common definition or field of study that this article would encompass, any contributions would obviously be OR, like it is now. Has been a stub since creation 10 months ago. Prod removed by creator. Hornplease 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. It does appear to be a common term in political science. I don't see how contributions would be OR when Google Scholar alone finds 91,400 uses of the term (examples[17][18][19][20][21]). I'm sure it can be reliably expanded. Part of the problem seems to be it wasn't tagged as part of any Wikiproject (I have now done this). Dbromage [Talk] 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I did mention that Google is not a reliable indicator for a common phrase, right? Hornplease 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I did mention its use in Google Scholar which is a good indicator of scholarly usage rather than overall Ghits. Dbromage [Talk] 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I include Google scholar in my concerns that "hits" are an inappropriate indicator. Using a phrase is not an indication that that phrase deserves an article. For example, "full strength" gets a similar number of google scholar hits. But naturally, it would not be a reasonable article title, as there is no coherent article that can be formed around all the uses of this phrase. "Political change" is a similar problem. Article titles in the social sciences are completely devoid of information in some sense; a doctoral thesis I just read was titled "three articles on structural change", but of course that was a catch-all phrase and one of the articles was about decolonisation in Algeria, one on postcolonial theory, and one on linguistic modification. Hornplease 08:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And every single book you cite will have a definition of political change for the purposes of the book. It is the sort of phrase that is a free-floating signifier which people use to clarify their arguments. For example "a conception of political change" should be read as "a useful concept, which I shall henceforth refer to as 'political change'". The author would be surprised to learn that we think it has external validity. Hornplease 08:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't support your assertion that some hypothetical future contribution to the article would "obviously be OR" when it hasn't happened yet. Any OR can be dealt with editorially. Putting it another way "If the article contains OR, trim it."[25]. You also haven't explained why the subject is not notable (see WP:JNN) or which (if any) Wikipedia policies the current article violates. The nomination seems rather flawed. Dbromage [Talk] 08:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been provided that there is a coherent article that can be formed under this heading. The first line of WP:N is that "..no original research is needed to extract the content." This is a poster case of where the only way that content could be 'extracted' is to write OR. Political change is too amorphous a phrase to be a reasonable article title. Any content - like the current stub - would be OR.Hornplease 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been provided that there isn't a coherent article that can be formed under this heading since it hasn't been written yet. As I said above, any OR can be dealt with editorially. We still only have your assertion that "any content" would be OR. "If the article contains OR, trim it"[26] seems reasonable. Dbromage [Talk] 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been provided that this subject is notable. You've provided google hits. I have explained at length why, for a common phrase, that is an unreliable indicator. You have to make the case that an article can be created here; you have not demonstrated notability for the concept, or even demonstrated that a concept exists. "Definition of politcal change", as you linked, has less than ten results in Books; and those, as I specify, can each be seen to have no external validity. Consider one of the results, which says "...it need not be assumed that Easton wished to come to such conclusions but these examples do reveal a lack of care in his definition of political change..." What this means is (a)the author of the review recognises that a definition of political change is mutable (b) the definition of political change can be chosen to aid the formation of an argument,in this case Easton's. Further, there are no definitions of political change that have been studied as definitions in themselves; there are no secondary sources for it. Implication: we will choose definitions that are in themselves primary sources; we will be creating original research. That is not our purpose here.
Sheesh. Occasionally I worry about Wikipedia. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pwned. :) Thin Arthur 08:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever that means. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a stub for a year. And the point I am trying to make is that any content would be OR, given the nature of the title. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete WP:WINAD; if you believe there's something more to write here than a circular definition, you've got five days to demonstrate your belief. I'm really unclear as to what could be written here. Theories of how and why political change happens? (Can anything be said about this in general, divorced from the specific political system?) A bunch of examples which eventually get split off into List of political changes and Political change in popular culture? Per User:Hornplease, this is just an unremarkable combination of two English words which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. cab 11:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above - this does seem to fall under WP:WINAD. This is just a definition and at best is a blanket, generic term for any number of concepts. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I try never to do "per nom" !votes, I don't think I can come up with a better reasoning. That title is clearly a common phrase and the nominator has demonstrated that a universal definition for it DOES NOT EXIST. Secondly, WP is not a dictionary. Also, procedural delete because thirdly, any article on "political change" would be accommodated FAR BETTER on a country by country (or constituency by constituency to be pedantic) basis. There is simply no need for an over-arching article under this title. Seriously, what type of content would go in here besides the definitions by numerous different authors? Zunaid©® 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not limited to articles on subfields of political science, we also write about notable concepts from such sciences, and political change, with close to 2 million Google hits and 7,000 in printed sources, including hundreds in book titles is certainly notable (just as social change); just browsing some of the above printed academic sources shows well that much effort has gone into defining this concept. The fact that the article is substub/dismbig is no reason for deletion; there are ample sources to expand it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Cab. (1) We have a stub that hasn't been improved in nearly a year. (2) We have a premise that violates WP:OR. (3) We have neither references nor sources. (4) The stub consists of the puerile statement "Political change refers to the concept of change in politics." No, really? (5) We have a dicdef of sorts without a particular widely recognized definition. (6) This is a classic example of the limitations of Google hits. "Red balloon" by the same test gives three and a half million Google hits ... should we on that basis alone have a Red balloon article?  RGTraynor  17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nobody has yet provided any conclusive proof that the premise violates OR. So far there is only one assertion and echoes. Only one other user picked up that "If the article contains OR, trim it" are the nominator's own words from another AfD. Since it's only been tagged as part of a Wikiproject for less than 24 hours of its 10 month history, why not let some actual experts see what they can do with it? Dbromage [Talk] 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. As I actually mention in the other AfD, there is a difference between being inherently OR and containing OR. I'll pass over the snide implication that I'm not an 'actual expert'. I do expect that people will read the argument (which differs from an assertion) that I have made and decide whether or not it is indicative. Expecting "conclusive proof" of a negative is perhaps an exercise in futility. Hornplease 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Agreed. That aside, Dbromage, while you're fighting the this-isn't-OR corner hard, that's far from the only severe issue about this article. Given that, the premise being OR is simple: we dispute (and do not believe there is evidence to support) that this is a widely-recognized phrase with a generally accepted definition. Everyone knows what Manifest destiny or Gunboat diplomacy mean, and there's no dispute as to the particulars.  RGTraynor  14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article that has nothing to say, and it says it. Appointment, resignation, elections, inheritance, revolution, social change. That's it. Mandsford 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the question here is whether any decent article could be written that wasn't just a huge OR-synthesis or "quote farm" of all these google hits that people have mentioned.. Eleland 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 08:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pink

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

Article apparently created by the subject himself raising WP:COI issues. Reads like an advertisement, with a little POV language, and absolutely no publicly verifiable, third-party reliable sources. A Lexis-Nexis news search produces no hits for the name “Jonathan Pink,” “lawyer,” “attorney,” “Los Angeles,” etc. also calling into question the notability of the subject per WP:N. A google search yields similar results with hits registering only for self-published articles on blogs and the corporate website. J Readings 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those was no support for this to continue as a standalone article. All the material in this article is already in the Pepsodent page with the exception of the image that I will move across (and add a fair-use rationale). TerriersFan 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irium

All of the information in this aticle is covered in the article for Pepsodent, and there is virtually no additional information that could be added, making this article hopelessly redundant. Calgary 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Irium is not an element. Feel free to consult any current periodic table of elements to confirm that. Irium seems to be a trade name/identifier for "Sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt" [27].1redrun 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hygena

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

Non-Notable contestant on reality show. See Crystal Clark deletion discussion. Tinkleheimer 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against It's too early right now to make a delete call on Hygena. She may turn out to be the season two winner, and an article would be required. Take note that Feedback has his own page. Another good note here is that Hygena was a guest at Comic Con this year and on the panel for the show. --GrashDaStampede 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In that case then articles could be used for all contestants, and then when each one is sent home, that article could be deleted. But that makes no sense to me. None of the other contestants (besides Mr. Mitzvah) has an article, so why should she? Tinkleheimer 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really hate to have to say this, but I agree with the Delete action. Usually I'm not impressed with deletion attempts, as they are sometimes somewhat POV themselves, but with this, the precedent is set with the first season. At one point, IIRC, most if not all of the characters had a page, but they have been absorbed into the main page. Season two should be the same. Unless we're going to have a page for every contestant on both seasons - which I think sets a very bad precedent - we have to limit it to the series. I would like Major Victory to have his own page as well, but that is not the way this article group is designed, and we must have consistency. VigilancePrime 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, she might be doesn't grant her any kind of real notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the above comment hits it on the head. That she might be the winner and might become notable is not the same as notable. Hell, I might become notable myself someday in the future but unless I actually do, I don't get an article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Giggy. If she wins, give her an article; if someone more notable named "Hygena" somehow comes along, then we can put in a disambig. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictional character with no real world notability Corpx 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grash, although I'm aware that's not how he intended the argument. WP:CRYSTAL means you don't write an article on spec; you write it when the subject becomes notable, not before.  RGTraynor  17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the bitch.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's too early to make an article! Unless she wins, fix it up a little.- Sing66
  • Delete I'm changing my vote as compromise. I'd rather this article be deleted than stick around because of a lack of consensus. Not notable enough to have her own page. TommyP 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Babin

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

Non-Notable Model who appeared on America's Next Top Model. Did not win the competition and article states nothing else notable about her. Tinkleheimer 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gordon B. Hinckley. Singularity 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standing for Something

Standing for Something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BK notability concerns. A mention in Gordon B. Hinckley article should suffice. Article has been tagged with notability tag since May 2007 with little to no progress having been made in establishing notability. SESmith 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Note, I just checked Hinkley's article, it already mentions the book. Useight 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gordon B. Hinckley. Singularity 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand a Little Taller

Stand a Little Taller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BK notability concerns. It appears to be a book made up of collected quotations by Gordon B. Hinckley. A mention on his page should more than suffice. Has been tagged with notability tag since June 2007 with no progress having been made at establishing notability. SESmith 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gordon B. Hinckley is the only article that links to right now. –SESmith 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (subculture)

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

Strikes me as entirely made up. Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response What the article really needs is citations. Even if the article does exist, without any relieble sources to support the information, the entire article is original research. Calgary 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I have speedy deleted (CSD#G1) the article Bro Hoe which was also started by Ryannelson714. That being said, Urban dictionary is indeed not what we're looking for as a reliable source. In any event, while the subculture itself may be legit (and this has yet to be established), the article itself is clearly junk. Excerpts include fantastic BJAODN such as "Bros can be seen chilling with their female counter-part of the Bro, the Bro Hoe." Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Again, proving it exists isn't the only issue. Even if we could prove that the subculture exists, we need to prove that all of the information in the article is factual, which can only be done by citing independent sources. If said sources do not exist, even if it is because the subculture is regional, then I would suggest that the lack of third-party coverage means the subculture is not notable. If said sources do exist, consisting of more than just proof that the subculture exists in some way shape or form, please add them.
As far as reliable sources go, WP:RS says it all, including "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Websites may be acceptable, but more so if they are reputable, and involve editorial review. Self-published sources generally aren't reliable because anyone can publish them (hence the name). Calgary 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=101088837&MyToken=4fff113f-dbc8-4b89-b0f7-402582361347 http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100451790&MyToken=51b57c42-8977-4991-9385-d1dc6d1434f1

Those Myspace groups are peer-edited, can those serve as proof? Ryannelson714 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response As I understand it, a MySpace group is not an actual publication, just a sort of community setting. And again, there's the problem of self-publication. Calgary 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response This is a subculture, just like skaters, surfers, emos, punk, goth, computer nerd, gangster/chavs, and others. nobody dictates how these genres of youth cultures are, they just become, evolve. just like hippies, it started somewhere, now its probably the most recongized subculture in the world, it didnt take scientific papers or political documents to tell the hippies what they are. Ryannelson714 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus. Tbo 157talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitfight Team

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

No sources and no information; practically a blank page with little notability short of a trainer and former champion fighter Thesaddestday 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After the changes made to the article it now has content. The numerous third-party sources help with notability, though it needs more help. Thesaddestday 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is nowhere close to complete. The sources and information will come as soon as I can find them. I want these team pages to eventually look like every other team page on Wikipedia but this will take time and I am taking it step by step. Please allow me the time to finish them. Unak78 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some links from reputable sports and news souces to show that this one of several broad-based and professional Mixed Martial Arts associations linked with organizations like the UFC, Pride FC, or WEC
  • Iceman.com, One of the articles on Chuck Liddell's website
  • Sherdog.comLiddells fight finder profile on Sherdog.com which lists him as a Pit fighter under Association.
  • ESPN's MMA page ESPN's affiliation with Sherdog.com Unak78 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although notablility is not inherited, the third-party sources provided make me lean towards a keep. The article needs serious help though.  east.718 at 17:54, August 21, 2007 
  • Keep The article appears to be in substantially different form from when it was nominated. While it needs work, it's sourced and cited, and if it sticks around, it will improve even more. Gnfnrf 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Re-written since nom, expanded and sourced. Notable topic, a well known fighter is based there & others have used it to train pre-fight. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek versus Star Wars

AfDs for this article:

Star Trek versus Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete This article is almost entirely original research. I see no independent, reliable sources for what is essentially a long-running nerd argument. --Phirazo 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Only one reliable source is quoted (the Forbes article). Dbromage [Talk] 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Star Trek versus Star Wars seems more of a forum topic.Kessingler 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Oysterguitarist 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you go to the Forbes link and click on "Star Wars Vs. Star Trek", it compares some differences such as the amount of books, video games, and money made for both sagas. But it's definitely not enough to warrant its own article. Almost all of the article is OR anyway. Spellcast 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost entirely original research, discussing a series of arguments occuring on internet bulletin boards. Calgary 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who cares? Giggy Talk 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be original research; no sources for virtually every piece of content in the entire article. --Haemo 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article contains OR, trim it. If the comparison itself, as well as its effects on fandom, is non-notable, then I do not think I would be able to find references in the LA Daily News [29], Salon [30], the Philadelphia inquirer [31], and the Chicago Tribune[32], all within a minute of looking around. '(I wish to stress that when I say 'references', I mean the articles quoted above are entirely about the comparison and its effects on fandom.) Hornplease 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Salon article is an editorial and is already mentioned in the article, along with a heaping helping of original research about fan reaction to the article. The Tribune and the Inquirer articles are the same article, which is mostly interviews with fans. I'm still looking around for the full text of the L.A. Daily News articles, but the blurb in the link screams "news of the weird". I don't see how an article can be built from these sources. As for trimming OR, if you remove the OR from this article, there won't be anything left. --Phirazo 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC
      • Comment Certainly there's OR. I don't see how the Brin article and a follow-up book does not help us here. Are we claiming that being the subject of an opinion article is not helpful in evaluating notability? I didn't realise that the Trib article and the PI article are identical; but that does not change the fact that (a) Knight-ridder ran it in several papers and (b) it is an indicator of notability. I quite agree that our current rules on RS even for fandom exclude a great deal of reliable online sources for uncontentious material (a problem, in the opinion of individuals such as Teresa Nielsen Hayden), but the various links provided indicate that an argument against notability fails, given that the comparison is the subject of multiple published sources satisfying current rules. The actual OR involved is a content problem, not something inherent to the subject matter. (For a distinction, see my comments on the 'political change' AfD immediately above. Hornplease 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rewrite/expand I think the subject of the matter is worth an article. After all, these are two huge fanbases and they do collide in many occasions. Article would need to be expanded with external references though, and much of it would need to be rewritten. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC) - Moving forward to normal Keep. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced fancruft. Thin Arthur 08:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Two huge sci-fi franchises which do cause discussion and comparisons. However, a rewrite may well be in order, as the article is a bit long for the subject. The title isn't really encyclopedic, either. Delete Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactally, Strong Delete fancruft DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I accept the point that a sourced rewrite isn't really possible. Since I don't think the article in the present form is tenable as an encyclopedia article, I've changed my vote. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the charge against the article is "OR" rather than "non-notable", this can and will be easily addressed by sourcing. Akerkhof 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If and only if such sources actually exist, which has not been demonstrated. If all the content has to be removed for sourcing problems, this is equivalent to deleting the article. Zunaid©® 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with any synthesis article, notability of the concept being synthesised into a topic must be demonstrated by referencing independent sources that have ALREADY made the synthesis. Without such third party referencing this article is fails both NOR as well as notability guidelines. Zunaid©® 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems like the links that Hornplease provides would blow up the SYNTH argument against, as well as address your comment to my vote. Is your position that those links could not be successfully incorporated into this article? Akerkhof 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly three unique third-party independent articles? For possibly the two largest sci-fi franchises in history? Methinks this demonstrates a lack of real-world notability. These articles make the comparison, they don't discuss the comparison as a phenomenon i.e. their use in any Wikipedia article would be as primary sources, not secondary. Compare: "A few Reliable Sources have drawn a comparison between...", which still requires the synthesis of the Reliable Source material into Wikipedia, whereas "The Reliable Guide to Star Wars and Star Trek documents the comparisons made by various other sources and poses the question: why does noone seem to care?" Primary sources do not establish notability, and to my mind do not adequately address SYNTH issues either. Zunaid©® 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-PeterVerkhovensky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.221.45 (talk) 01:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep i dont know how much you are aware of internet history as a whole, but the STvsSW era was a big part of the subculture.

For the same reason we dont delete articles about napoleon's war campaigns or even stuff about myspace is because the information exists and wikipedia is supposed to act as an encyclopedic entry which at least attempts to document as much as possible. To delete the SWvsST article would be like saying "its ok to destoy some history based on what i feel like now", its simply a biased judgement based on ignorance of the fact.TTMSHU 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Anytime someone cites "fancruft" as a reason for deletion, that deletion is automatically suspect, because all the term means is "something I don't like," which is not a valid reason to delete anything. Furthermore, this debate has played a very large role in Internet subculture, and is notable for that alone, as demonstrated by the multiple references to it in various media linked above. Rogue 9 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for deletion is actually that the article is completely unsourceable original research. Jay32183 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you want proof that it exists and is a large phenomenon? That can easily be provided in a matter of minutes; I'm tempted to tell you to learn to use Google. I'll give the article a look and see what I can do with it, but given that it's survived three deletion attempts already, I see this fourth one as nothing more than a waste of AfD's time. Rogue 9 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is the responsibility of those wishing to keep material to provide sources. People wanting to delete articles do not have to prove none exist. Find sources or don't say "keep". Plain and simple. Also, no reliable sources will exist. This is a fanboy debate. It will always be original research and never have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that were the case, source citations would be asked for. You know, all those pages that have comments that original research needs to be removed and sources added. Instead the article is just nominated for deletion without consideration given for improvement. Alyeska 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this case the article cannot be improved. It is impossible. This article is 100% original research and always will be. Deletion is the answer. You should not be offended that articles get nominated for deletion. People calling for deletion have no obligation to try to improve the article, they only have to consider the possibility of improvement. Jay32183 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't help but notice the pejorative language. I will say keep if it so pleases me to say keep, and in fact it does. The article documents a widespread and highly notable Internet phenomenon. That you don't like that fact due to your apparent dislike of "fanboys" is of no consequence. Rogue 9 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You will be ignored if your "keep" is simply a vote, and not a contribution to a discussion about how this article does or does not fail policy and guideline. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did you even read my initial entry? It does not fail policy because the topic is mentioned in multiple media sources and is well documented across the Internet in general, and guidelines don't matter. Rogue 9 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never knew that reporting fact was original research. You know, all those external links in the page happen to source the claims given. Calling this entire article original research with no chance for improvement is incredibly short sited and arrogant. Your saying that your right and couldn't possibly be wrong. Don't give the people you disagree with any chance to improve anything. Alyeska 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Forbes article is the only reliable source independent of the topic and it isn't being used for anything meaningful. There is no defense within policy or guideline for this article. The article fails WP:N as well. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lets see, source material in inadmissable, you must have indepedent information from acredited news agencies. You can't just read it with your own eyes. Oh yeah, thats logical. Alyeska 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic is required. Try reading Wikipedia:Notability before claiming something is notable. Jay32183 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just like the Trek page Jean-Luc Picard meets the requirements (rolls eyes) Alyeska 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What does any other article have to do with this one? --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The point being, that page is nothing more then "fancruft" and certainly not notable. And yet, its perfectly allowed. Alyeska 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't hold water. These two articles are completely different. Picard is a Star Trek captain, there is certainly information to be had on that. This article is about a nerd argument. Any article about it will neccessarily be a mostly a novel synthesis of existing sources, with a few sources that merely prove the argument exists (the Forbes article). --Phirazo 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The primary arguments given against this page is that it is fancruft and that it isn't notable. Those are the two arguments. Those exact same arguments can be made in reference to fictional characters who have entire biographies detailing them. Whats more, Picard is a fictional character and so the information isn't real whereas this page is detailing real information. Alyeska 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's an argument to delete that article, not to keep this one. Jay32183 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not true. Established precedent. Others articles that supposedly violate the given reasons to delete this article (fancruft and notability) exist and are allowed to exist. Therefor no violation exists and this article should not be deleted. Alyeska 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, that is the fundamental flaw of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. They aren't necessarily "allowed to exist". Does that article have an AFD that resulted in "Keep", not "No consensus"? People wishing to delete an article have no obligation to nominate all articles of similar condition, especially when sourcing is the issue. Some unsourced articles do have sources out there and people will get them if they don't have to do it for 5000 articles all at once. Also, the reasons for deletion here are notability and original research, not fancruft. Fancruft isn't actually a reason for deletion because it's completely subjective and basically it's the WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument. Jay32183 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Did you just completely fail to notice that this article has not one, not two, but three AFDs that resulted in "Keep," not "No consensus?" Rogue 9 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I am not talking about one or two, or even three pages. I am talking about hundreds, quite possibly thousands of pages that detail fictional characters who have absolutely no notability and are definately fancruft. How about the entire cast of characters from Star Trek. An average of 7 characters per series over 5 series, thats 35 character pages. Or how about the pages detailing characters from the X-Men universe. Or what about Star Wars pages? These are pages that will never get deleted unless there is a massive shift in consensus. There is no fundamental flaw. These pages are not merely tolerated or allowed, they are encouraged by the practices of Wikipedia. And to use reasoning such as fancruft and notability as a reason to get rid of other articles while allowing fictional character biographies is a classic double standard. Alyeska 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seriously doubt many will be deleted at all. And sources does not equal notability. Just do a little research on Brian Peppers and Stolen Sidekick. Alyeska 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the vast majority of character bios don't meet this requirement. I still don't see them getting deleted. And I really doubt you do either. Paradigm shifts aren't a common site afterall. Alyeska 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Other stuff should be deleted too" is not a reason to keep. It never will be. Those article do not meet a speedy criteria, so they require AFD's. Don't complain that a particular article was nominated for deletion while acknowledging that it fails policy. Jay32183 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Alyeska, are you really suggesting the article should use bulletin boards for sources? That is about as unreliable as you can get. --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to be clear, the only part of this article that is really objectionable to you is the newsgroup /message board history part? Because everything else (I realize that is 50% of the article) is readily sourced. I count at least 8 sources in this very AFD, two of which, the Forbes article and the salon article, verifies most of the introduction and "Major issues" section and are already cited. We can delete the history if that's what is getting everyone's knickers in a bind. Akerkhof 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole article is a "newsgroup /message board history". It all has to go. --Phirazo 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If your point is that message boards are unreliable as sources of information on other topics, then fine. But if the article needs to source the fact that something is widely discussed on message boards, then the discussions themselves seem a perfectly adequate source, given that they're right there and readily obvious. Rogue 9 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Self-published sources, such as message boards and blogs, are generally held as unreliable sources for anything. Besides, any sourcing from message boards will be a novel synthesis of the arguments presented there, since the author would have to characterize the debate somehow. This is not a trivial or obvious thing to do, and is something that would require a secondary source. --Phirazo 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bulk of the keeps boil down to WP:ILIKEIT votes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is synthesized original research. There is no indication that this topic has received any kind of significant coverage by independent secondary sources. RFerreira 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are many Wikipedia articles on fiction a pit of unverifiable fanboyish cruft? Yes. Does this give a free pass to all articles on fiction? No. Simple as that, really. --Phirazo 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone is just ignoring everyone else here. The delete people keep saying that this is synthesized original research, and the keep people keep saying that there are multiple links demonstrating secondary synthesis of the remaining parts of the article. I think we have enough.. uh... debate to now receive the "consensus" decision from the mods. Akerkhof 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what's happening at all. The delete people are actually saying that this subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The keep people are saying "I don't care what the policy is, this article stays". The problem will continue beyond this AFD if the people saying "keep" don't understand that what they are saying is factually wrong. Jay32183 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like it to me. Also, the delete people keep moving the goalposts, as you demonstrate in this very thread. First, there is no way to write an article on this subject since there will be no secondary sources found. Secondary source found. Well, they don't provide synthesis. Article providing synthesis pointed out. Well, there aren't that many of them. Multiple sources found. Well, they aren't in depth coverage. To which I retort that the Forbes article verifies everything that the article says. Yet still we have delete votes being cast on the basis of the impossibility of finding articles providing synthesis. Talk about being factually wrong. If the article has a crime, besides its existance as documentation of "fanboy cruft", is that it elaborates on these points using primary sources to provide context. This can be fixed, if it needs to be. But for instance, using google groups as a primary source to provide a post count demonstrating levels of activity is entirely appropriate, according to my reading of policy. Akerkhof 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "goalpost" has always been the same: add reliable secondary sources to the article. No one has done this. All that has happened to the article over the last week is that the "History" section was removed. No one has actually sourced anything in the article. People have been claiming this article is improvable, yet no one has actually done so. --Phirazo 16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is going to keep going in circles. Can a sysop please close this? --Phirazo 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a really bad idea to ask for that. It almost guarantees a closure of "no consensus" even though there is a consensus to delete. All of the keeps are against policy. Jay32183 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Says you. What the hell do you call this, this, this, this, and this, then? If it isn't a widespread and influential Internet phenomenon, how is it that I can find this, this, this, this, and this with a single minute of searching? This article documents a widespread, influential, and inclusion-worthy phenomenon, albeit poorly. That calls for a rewrite, not deletion. And you are still neglecting the indisputable fact that this article has survived three deletion attempts already, making this one a frivolous and redundant waste of time. Rogue 9 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Message boards containing the debate are not independent of the subject. There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. The significant coverage is all in primary sources and the secondary sources only confirm the existence. That fails WP:N without question. The only way you can want to keep this article is if you do not understand policy. Jay32183 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, you're telepathic? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you know my own thoughts better than I do. Anyway, do you not read? Forbes, Salon, and the Knight Ridder news service are all independent of each other, and last I checked "multiple" meant "more than one." It's time to end this ridiculous quadruple jeopardy, if nothing else so I don't have to put up with you sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending this whole thing doesn't exist. Because as long as we're pretending to be psychic, I might point out that the nominator's statements earlier in this debate point to the motivations for initiating this discussion being summed up by personal dislike. I mean, dismissing it as a "nerd argument" is supposed to mean something in the context of whether or not to keep it? Come on, now. Rogue 9 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The part you keep missing is "significant coverage". It needs to be covered in depth. Multiple sources mentioning something is not the same as multiple sources giving significant coverage. There is no significant coverage independent of the debate. Forbes does not have significant coverage of "Star Trek versus Star Wars". Jay32183 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Calling someone on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is only really relevant when that is the only reason to delete. --Phirazo 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please why is it original research it is very helpful as a comparison yuckfoo 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we compare what can be referenced from the sources given to date (even including those links above to which my "requiring registration" objection still applies) against the current content of the article, about all we can really verify is the first sentence. To take the Forbes article as an example, this does provide verification for the existence of a SWvsST debate... but not for anything else. The Forbes article itself goes on to compare things like books printed, awards won etc for each franchise via the slideshow, but it does this without analysis and therefore makes no synthesis. Thus we can't cite this for anything other than the existence of the debate itself. That such a debate is notable (even if only within a minority niche) is provable. Whether this fact is worth an entire Wikipedia article is another matter. EyeSereneTALK 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not properly referenced no third party sources. Harlowraman 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect all to their respective albums. Singularity 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Bow (song)

Take a Bow (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable about this song. Not released as a single, nothing special happened because of it. Article is empty but for infobox (I would go with {{db-empty}}, but I'm giving the article creator a chance to add content). Image used is actually the album cover (since there is no "song cover"). Giggy Talk 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Giggy, your opinion on the music is utterly of no use here. Please stop providing it.)

I am also nominating the following related pages, which are in the same situation, created by the same person:

Overdue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fillip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Exo Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Assassin (Muse song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soldier's Poem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fury (Muse song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruled by Secrecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dark Shines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Futurism (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Screenager (song) (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Line, Pennsylvania

State Line, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of these places seem to be notable, much of the detail in the article is unsourced, and the few sources / external links that are provided do not seem to be reliable sources. Most of the wikilinks to this article are from its inclusion in three Pennsylvania county nav box templates (so every place in those counties now links here). Once those are eliminated, it is linked to from very few articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd suggest a merge/redirect to the incorporated political entity, but since this is a link to three different (and ambiguous) place names, I'll vote to keep this article for the sake of disambiguation. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for most of the same reasons listed above, especially the disambiguation. Dincher 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per near-complete consensus that places are notable. I know it's summer here in the Northern Hempisphere, but do I feel WP:SNOW in the air? Alansohn 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is so silly. If there's snow in the air, then it's a flurry of ignorance. Some people seem to be impressed that someone has located three "towns" called State Line, Pennsylvania, while others seem to be in love with the author for putting all three together in one article. Folks, none of these places are towns! State Line, PA, 17263 has a post office in Franklin County, so people do get their mail there. There is apparently a neighborhood near Erie, PA with that name. Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community. If settlements "of any kind" are notable, why don't we have articles about subdivisions, tough neighborhoods, and trailer parks? I'd quote the rule about WP:TRIVIA, but this is too boring to call trivia. Mandsford 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community.
  • Comment None of these are incorporated places under Pennsylvania law (they are not cities or boroughs or towns). They are, as noted above, part of townships (which are incorporated municipalities). They are listed in GNIS and you can find them on the PennDOT maps for the counties in question, but other than that there is essentially no other information on them online (saying it is in a place or near a highway is information from the map). The Mapquest links do not currently work, the zip code is for a post office box, not a place (according to usps.gov), the weather link is for Hagerstown, Maryland, the restaurants link is the PA state tourism website and does not list State Line, and the Franklin County statistics are unsourced. Franklin County, Pennsylvania has seven boroughs, fifteen twonships, and four census-designated places. If every hamlet (place) is truly notable, then there are more than 50 others just in Franklin County (by the PennDOT map). If these are all notable (and not just places to be mentioned in the township articles, for example), then we need a lot more stubs made (that will never be more than stubs). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, settlements such as these are notable and worth of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. Tango 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuanton Mall

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

Very difficult to red page on the Staunton Mall, a non-notable dying mall in Virginia. Mall fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 10:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)

List of rappers who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this necessary when we already have List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)? This would be better served as a category. For example, we have Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs number-one singles. If this is kept, it should probably go under Category:Billboard Hot Rap Tracks number-one singles. Spellcast 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Belfort

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

non-notable fighter (no fights), limited google hits; prod declined NeilN 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two different roads to the same outcome. Spellcast 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Few sources available to verify claims of 'holiness', and one of those sources is a near-verbatim copy of this article. Given its hibernation period of more than a year (except for vandalism), it seems unlikely more sources can be found and the article won't improve. - KrakatoaKatie 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Virsa Singh Ji

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

Nomination for PROD-deletion in August 2007 of an article discussed at AFD in December 2005 with an outcome of keep ... procedural nomination. The original AFD was brought with the reasoning "Vanity article on obscure person", obscurity based on a low number of Google hits. The re-nomination for deletion is accompanied with the rationale "This article has been tagged as lacking souces for over a year. Articles require independent, reliable sources verifying their content and are presumptively original research in their absence." The if it lacks sources it must be OR reasoning appears to be on the rise lately, something which I do not at all agree with. Nonetheless, the article has sat essentially unchanged - and unreferenced - since it's 12/2005 previous trip here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this topic is inherently a novel synthesis. — TKD::Talk 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio presidents

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

Maybe this article can be saved. There are versions in the history that are better than the current one (if anyone reverts to a different one, please make sure to add the AfD notice). The problem is that, though this is a good topic for a history essay, it's not an encyclopedia topic unless what the various people discussed here have in common is clear and incontrovertible. I think it can't be; I've looked for sources (perhaps not as hard as you will, so feel free to prove me wrong on this), and all I can find are Ohio pride-type websites and opinionated pieces about corruption in the Ohio Republican party. This could be a subsection in Ohio, since no one would deny that the sheer fact of Ohio's 8 presidents is of interest, and if the corruption charges could be sourced one could imagine an article History of the Ohio Republican party in the nineteenth century, or some such, that would detail them, but as it is, this is original research and either not NPOV or, essentially, trivia. I'm interested to hear other opinions. Chick Bowen 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR and trivia, as stated in the nom. The article basically says "there were seven US presidents from Ohio- now here's what happened to have occurred while they happened to have been in office." The only actual information is completely unrelated to the actual point of the article. -- Kicking222 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the past revisions original research seems to be a problem. As far as current factual information goes, all we have is 8 presidents from Ohio. The article in the past attempted to assert the historical notability of "the Ohio presidents", as though they were a subject of significant interest in American history. Now, I've never heard of these "Ohio presidents" as a group before, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is because they are not an actual subject of study. Either way, going with the old revisions is clearly accepting original research, but to remove the original research, all we are left with is the names of 8 presidents connected by the fact that they are from Ohio. Neither are grounds for an article. Calgary 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Any desire to merge viable content into say List of United States Presidents by place of primary affiliation? FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, WP:SYNTH is in play here. Writing articles about "Presidents from Ohio" cannot really be done without the synthesis because you're tying up people who are not directly related Corpx 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the New York Times [36] or the Washington Post[37]. There is probably more, given that there is a ton of study of state influence on national elections, which well, leads to things like candidates being selected because they were from Ohio. [38] is one example, though more are about Virginia than Ohio, Ohio does crop up there. Whether or not the current contents of this article reflect any of that, I'm not sure. FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the free preview given by the NYT and Washington Post articles, I see no synthesis in there and nor do I see any reason to suspect much synthesis in the articles themselves Corpx 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'm reading it a bit differently than you. However, I think the adoption of the slogan "Mother of Presidents" (split with Virginia), is enough to show some potential there. May not be best in this article though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's not just the content that's OR, it's the topic. Of course there are any number of sources about those guys, but we need sources that point to a relationship. Chick Bowen 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All this is is synthesis of disparate topics. It's worthwhile to mention in Ohio, say, that it's the birthplace of N Presidents, but it's not enough of a connection to discuss them all in the same article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, some of us would deny that the sheer fact of Ohio's 8 presidents is of interest. It's one of the less interesting bits of presidential trivia, like all the presidents who were born in Virginia, or all the presidents whose first names began with "J". I do like the attempt to add a cool sounding comment about "the apogee of graft and corruption in U.S. public life" to an otherwise indiscriminate list of topics. Besides, there are Ohio Governors, but no Ohio Presidents. Mandsford 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up the river, down the river

One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion earlier today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Death (drinking game)) Per the closing statement of this aborted mass-nomination, this is an individual relist of the article. -- Saberwyn 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adding a request for verifiable sources to this article page would be a good way to start this process. Not having verification isn't an automatic deletion criterion, being unverifiable is - an important distinction. Before nominating an article for deletion, shouldn't the nominator at least research the article themselves, adding the sources if possible? I haven't tackled notability as this is not the reason given for nomination, but all drinking game are cultural memes that have lasted in many cases for centuries and appear in various places in popular literature etc. Vizjim 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope.... Delete as nn drinking game. Eusebeus 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Kuno

Susumu Kuno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • If he really is that notable, would you mind expanding on the article and adding more sources? The article has been an orphaned stub for over a year and has little notable content. Djma12 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it has the content it needs. His academic work. That they have been published by the places that did is what shows them notable and well-recognized by his peers. DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several of the articles are in Communications of the ACM. a high prestige journal over a very wide field. But this is reasonable, he was Professor of Linguistics at Harvard. They do not appoint undistinguished people to professorships there. He has passed numerous peer-reviews in his life of much greater stringency than here--or perhaps someone is really under the delusion that our standards are or ought to be higher? Perhaps someone thinks the editors here have better judgement in these things? DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is not with this individual's credentials, they seem impeccable. I'm merely pointing out that the article as it stands is far below standard. Normally, I would just say that it requires improvement, but it has been tagged as orphaned for over a year now. If you would like to improve the article so that it meets WP:BIO standards, by all means. Djma12 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why it's marked as a stub. That's the whole point of the stub markers: to indicate an article is lacking in information and needs to be expanded. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, one probable reason why it's (near-) orphaned is that linguistics -- real linguistics, not droll lexicographic oddities and moral panics about the alleged decay of the language etc etc -- is poorly represented in en:WP. This is because, despite the best efforts of such people as Steven Pinker, real linguistics is of interest to a smallish percentage of people, and a smallish percentage of these are ready to write up substantive matters at short notice. (Those few who are ready tend to be hard at work on their PhD theses, their own papers, helping others with their PhD theses, etc.) Thus such an everyday linguistics notion as scrambling is nowhere explained and hardly mentioned in en:WP, and thus there can be no link to Kuno from Scrambling (linguistics) or whatever. -- Hoary 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Hoary. AfD is not the place to point out that an article is below standards. Rather, the appropriate project (if any) should be notified so that the article can be improved. Keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of articles that fall under WP:JA, and we can't possible keep close tabs on all of them. A simple note would have sufficed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuno is highly notable and is essentially a household name among linguists. The article may be lacking, but that is only reason to improve it, not delete it. Bendono 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- suggest adding redirect from "Festschrift" to "Substantial recognition as an expert by ones peers." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Could you rephrase this suggestion? As it is, I don't understand it. -- Hoary 09:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. I think the point is that the article contains a wikilink to festschrift, when it describes a pair of festschrifts devoted to Kuno, but that it may not be obvious to non-academics that a festschrift is a sign of substantial recognition. I don't see a need to change the article itself, but I agree that this is important evidence for passage of WP:PROF #2 or #6. —David Eppstein 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly what I meant. Sorry about the bad joke. I'd regard a Festschrift as about as important as a Time magazine cover for determining the importance of a researcher. To get a Festschrift a whole group of your colleagues have to decide that your ideas and publications are important. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kuno is a significant figure in Japanese linguistics. With all the other crap that gets to stay in WP I can't see why anyone would think this article is taking up too many bytes. Djiann 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beating a dead horse here with my Johnny-come-lately vote, but it's pretty obvious that the article will be saved for the reasons stated above. J Readings 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation here, please ask me if you need any more details (or correct me if I'm wrong ^_^) Thanks, Majorly (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter (3rd Nomination)

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

This is an AfD relist as directed at this DRV. There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Harry Potter for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. The article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists and not adhering to that criteria with reliable source material. With AfD #1 closed after ten hours and AfD #2 closed because AfD #1 was not taken to DRV, please keep this Afd #3 open for at least five days. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is the only thing that makes something notable. Reliable independent media coverage is the definitions of notability in Wikipedia. Voting by Wikipedians is 100% subjective, voting by media outlets in deciding to cover a topic is an objective measure. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. As noted in the first deletion debate, there are secondary sources which can (and should) be cited. But even if there weren't, I think the primary sources would be sufficient. To quote from WP:PSTS: "...there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I think this applies. --Bfigura (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Bfigura, provided individual entries are purely descriptive and there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Dbromage [Talk] 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fancruft. Every little spell will be listed? who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?. Isnt there a harry potter oriented wiki around?, if so, this article should belong there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs).
    • Comment Right, because, you know, there aren't any Harry Potter fans. Nope. Definitely not millions and millions of them from around the world. As Alethiophile exemplified, Harry Potter is a global phenomenon. GlassCobra 04:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is there any evidence Spells in Harry Potter are a global phenomenon? The notability of the work does not extend to every facet of a fictional world described in that work. David Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some evidence, but I admit to having not yet found any secondary sources discussing "Spells in Harry Potter" as a general topic: Avada Kedavra in Google News, accio and "harry potter" in Google News, Alohomora in Google News, Expelliarmus in Google News, Expecto patronum in Google News, Wingardium Leviosa in Google News. Ichormosquito 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wikia. In other words, export from Wikipedia, import to Wikia, reconnect all the links. Make this a fully connected process, and the readers won't even notice a difference. Great info, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The Harry Potter Wikia works just like us, it's run by the community, and since it's specific, more control specifically to the HP editors. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikia is not "just like us", it is a profit making business. Brandon97 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cut the bullshit. Wikia is not a non-profit company, and that is all. Organizations and companies that are not listed as non-profit are not evil. All content generated by Wikia, shared by Wikia, and so on, is 100% free to use for any reason whatsoever. We can even take content back from Wikia and put it on Wikipedia. I'm really tired of this idea that an organization is bad if they don't list themselves as non-profit. Wikia is an excellent project, and is supported by the Wikipedia community and vise-versa as a supporter of GFDL content. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, transwiki per Ned Scott, or, at most, merge with Magic (Harry Potter). WP:WAF says that in-universe information needs to be backed up with real-world sourcing to make it encyclopedic. There needs to be information written specifically about the spells, or it isn't notable enough to have its own separate article. Furthermore, notability is not inherited. Just because Harry Potter is notable doesn't mean that the spells in the books are. bwowen talk•contribs 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. I direct you to the first and second noms, whose keep votes really summarize my argument. This is notable. Just about everyone who's read the books is shouting these spells at one another. If you can have articles about obscure porn stars who nobody's ever heard of, one of which I AfD'd and got a spasm of Keeps and a one-hour close, then you can have articles listing the spells in a series that almost nobody's not heard of. Somebody Else's Problem(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a fine article. It might be made better by a short description of the current Harry Potter cultural phenomena--this would give it sufficient outside sources and place it in its proper place of current real, not just fictional, world significance.
    • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Dbromage [Talk] 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's not a matter of what people are saying, it's a matter of coverage by credible sources. bwowen talk•contribs 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Try using good judgement, if obscure fancruft articles seem to be the bane of wikipedia, why should this be the exception?.Kessingler 04:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bane of the encyclopedia"? Surely, those are vandals, or our justified reputation on articles like "Palestinian Liberation Front", or the inherent instability and increasing difficulty of maintaining quality? This is a matter of specifying the bounds on how much readers should be able to learn, and if tightening those bounds seems like a comparable issue, then there's something seriously wrong with perspective and I have to suggest a re-evaluation of priorities and probably a trip outside to look at the clouds. --Kizor 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though i hate to be doing forum-like comments here, i must say that although your comment seems passionate, its an argumental falacy as we are talking here about a promoting a minor topic on a fiction novel. That has little to do with "bounds on how much readers should be able to learn", but more with the obsene amount of "trash knoledge" [sic] that abounds in wikipedia, you name the multi-billion dollars bubblegum franchise out there, its [sic] got its own article based on nothing but merchandising here in wikipedia... and it has probably survived 6 proposals for deletion because of poor judgement on behalf of the fans (we have special dedicated wikis for a reasson). Though there are many issues and problems in wikipedia, there's sadly far more focus on nerd articles than in real important academic issues (for any doubt, please see "Wikigroanning").Kessingler 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ooh! I've long wanted to talk to someone who thinks that disproportionate coverage of different subjects is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It could prove really educational for both parties. Can we discuss this in more detail elsewhere? --Kizor 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As previously stated in the DRV, the spells are collectively a very major plot element. I'm a firm proponent of improving over deleting, and there have been mentions of several books that can serve as proper references in the article on top of the improvement that's already been occuring. These books include The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek and Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert. One user has already stated that he has a copy of the latter book; I'm sure he'd be willing to help source the article if he weren't so busy trying to defend it from deletion. As per XDanielx's excellent list: "There are articles about spells in Harry Potter, and there are lists of spells from Harry Potter (external links), but there are (probably) no articles which discuss lists of spells in Harry Potter. In this case, following WP:N, we do not treat lists of spells in Harry Potter as the topic, but rather Spells in Harry Potter." Further, "just as exceptional claims require exceptional sources, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as 'the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story.'" The uproar over the lack of sources for facts that anyone with eyes can plainly see is totally unfounded. This is a clear choice to me. GlassCobra 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of sources, we have a lack of real world information on these individual spells. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fortunately, the existence of movies and their special effects makes at least some of that doable. I bet somebody could find Wingardium Leviosa's special effects documentary. A song too? And of course, it'd also be possible to connect the spells to works in other literature. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uber mighty keep. The argument regarding verifiability seems ludicrous to me - the information is factual, uncontentious, and comprehensively substantiated by multiple uninterested secondary sources. We do not need a Harvard Law Review article to establish that the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter stories. The references listed in external links do a particularly fine job already. A topic which is intimately related to a story that sold 325+ million books is notable. I gave a more comprehensive spiel which I won't repeat on why I think this article does pass WP:N on the DRV, but whether I was correct or not is really just a trivial technicality. If it were true that the article in question failed the minutia of WP:N, WP:FICT, or whatever similar policy, then that policy should be ignored without hesitation. The topic does not need explicit criteria, because there are no ambiguities any larger than an archaeon. There are a finite number of spells involved in the Harry Potter stories, and we can identify names and descriptions for nearly all of them. This is clearly an issue of virtually no relevance to the potential of the article and if it's even worth discussing then that should be done on it's talk page. — xDanielx T/C 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Ned Scott and WP:FICT. Will also support delete or merge consensus. — Deckiller 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a consensus to keep in previous discussions, so I suggest solving any problems on the talk page instead. Really, working with other editors is important, not just using AFD over and over again. FrozenPurpleCube 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki An encyclopedia is not a fan site. This, to me, is no different than a list of cars in <video game> or list of maps in <video game>. This stuff belongs in a fan site/specialized encyclopedia. Corpx 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ichormosquito's keep reasoning is based on sources that have yet to be found (through 3 AFDs) and is contrary to what WP:FICT is saying. My reason to delete this article is the lacking of real world notability (among others), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT Corpx 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that more secondary sources would be great, but if I'm reading WP:PSTS correctly, they're not strictly necessary in this case. But since I'm lacking a New York Times article devoted to spells in Harry Potter, I suppose I'd have to argue that the survival of this article through 2 AfD's suggests a consensus on notability. (A weak argument, I confess). --Bfigura (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used to cite information, even though that practice is looked down upon by some editors. However, primary sources cannot establish notability. As for the first two AFDs, they look to me like a barrage of WP:ILIKEITs and WP:ITSUSEFULs and both were speedy closed (inappropriately too, in my opinion) Corpx 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't think editors should underestimate the importance of this AfD. The guidelines at WP:FICT have recently undergone some changes, and I think this debate will influence whether those changes are realistically applicable. The question to answer: should editors be faced with a heavy burden to produce real-world information, when an article's subject is already a significant component to an extremely notable work? I myself have no idea. I think the shift toward real-information is a good one; but on the other hand, we shouldn't ghettoize articles too hastily. According to the current WP:FICT, an article should be kept if there exists an obvious potential to produce real-world sources for it. It also states that the onus should be on the article's defenders to find these sources. Although little or no real-world content has been produced thus far, I have no doubt it exists. I ask the closing admin to allow the article a stay and to strongly encourage that editors find reliable, real-world content directly related to Spells in Harry Potter within the month, before the inevitable 4th AfD. Ichormosquito 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per the many good reasons listed above. --S.dedalus 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)**[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the reasons listed above, esp. User:Ichormosquito --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per previous three debates (AFD, AFD2, DRV) it is obvious there is no consensus to delete this, and the only reason it is relisted anyway is process wonkery. >Radiant< 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Both of the previous AfDs were closed prematurely, as decided in the DRV. This isn't going to be speedy kept, and will be up a minimum of five days. bwowen talk•contribs 09:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not evaluating the article at all, but instead on a technicality that we had 3 AfD pages formatted. Two AfDs were closed before relevant discussion could be made, and that, in no freaking way, is an indication that something should be kept. Remember Elonka's RFA, where the first few days she had well over 90% support? The existence of a flaw in the AFD process does not support keeping this article, and should never prevent us from having a proper discussion on the matter, where more people have time to give input. Furthermore, it's not a vote, and arguments based on policy and guidelines are generally given more weight than ILIKEITS. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, speedy keep. Shocking though the curt attitude was, on reflection, I cannot disagree with Radiant!'s analysis. --Kizor 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak keep for now. This discussion is essentially a continuation of AFD1, AFD2 and DRV where there was no clear consensus. I understand the feelings of the Potter fans but they have to provide secondary sources and assert notability. Thin Arthur 08:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as I and others have continued to state, this article is not worthy of deletion. What I do not understand is why we keep having AfDs and DRVs that end up with the same results. Instead of arguing about it we should fix up the problems we have instead (you can list them here). Just keep in mind you deletionists that there are sources we can put here. Will that make you happy? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and gut any OR on etymology. Spells being you know a major element of HP, having an article on spells might actually make sense! Having already been noted by others that there's reliable sources that can be used, one should note that notability is the pillar of Wikipedia inclusion citeria, and there can be no doubt spells in HP is notable. For the quoters of WP:FICT, I quote just one point while you use it to debate away in this AfD - "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". When the debate turns into what should be included in the article and how it should be presented, I encourage editors to participate in the article's talk page. KTC 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: magic is certainly a central aspect of Harry Potter, and that's why there there's Magic (Harry Potter), but there's nothing notable, in the real world, about the spells themselves. Miremare 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response To say something I've been saying, we can't merge it just because it's magic. All objects and potions would have to be merged into Magic (Harry Potter) including central plot aspects such as the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows, and yet, there is no argument to there existence. Are they not essentially plot details? Are they not magic? There are, but no would would dare take them down. There has also been significant amount of work done to all of these articles and moving them to a place that would do nothing short of destroy them would be pretty insulting. While I don't think that's a real factor, it should be taken into account. Therequiembellishere 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response I agree that it would be unfortunate to lose anything that people have worked hard on, but that isn't necessary. Anything in the article that isn't already there could be copied to the Harry Potter Wiki (and probably should be anyway). But when it comes to merging, we just have to be selective and choose the most importasnt things for inclusion and discard that which isn't. This is, after all, exactly what the editiors of any other fiction-related articles have to do. Miremare 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Three nominations in one month... My goodness. The reasons for wanting deletion haven't changed. They boil down to "I don't like it" and "I don't understand it". Some have noted a supposed lack of sources. The sources could be improved, but that is not a good enough reason for deletion. The reasons for keeping are that it is clearly notable to anyone with a pulse. It is clearly useful, and a significant part of the Harry Potter series. I've summarized my thoughts twice before. My opinion hasn't changed. Continual nomination doesn't change the fact that this is a notable topic and it should stay. nut-meg 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these "fabled" sources have been listed here for you. You could also do something crazy like an Amazon search and find them yourself. But the proper thing to do here is give time for improvement of the sources. Nominating it every week and decrying the lack of sources is not helpful, and points to an underlying reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sorcerer's Companion and The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter have been mentioned once or twice. The Beacham's Sourcebook, Exploring Harry Potter, seems like a worthwhile read as well. As for the etymologies, I maintain that the bulk is in intelligible Latin and that giving editors' translations of foreign words together with the original forms is acceptable from for references, let alone these, but it helps that a moment's incompetent journaling found Verbatim, a language quarterly, and Harry Potter Through the Looking-Glass, a scholarly essay. These feature loads and add some background information and context, to boot. An user has already noted that he has one of the first two books and that it works for this purpose, and sworn to get on that. Give it a while, AfDs very seldom fix articles. Often they keep that from happening. (Just an essay, but chances are you've seen that.) --Kizor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several non-fiction Harry Potter books on the market. Brandon97 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per WP:FICTION. The article does not contain sufficient real-world content. It's merely a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or transwikki to the Harry Potter Wiki. None of the keepers seem to acknowledge the point the nominator makes: This article needs real world secondary sources to establish its notability. That it is notable "in-universe" is not in any doubt, but we live in the real world, not inside the Harry Potter universe. Notability can only be establish by referencing out-of-universe (i.e. real world) sources. I also don't buy the argument that real world sources "must be out there/can be found". If so, why has nothing been done about it before this 3rd nomination? Editorially, the correct procedure is to trim items that don't demonstrate real world notability. When, as a result of such trimming, the article would effectively be blank, the correct procedure is then to delete. Lastly, a small appeal to the closing admin: please weigh the strength of the arguments based on the reasoning presented and do not use the weight of numbers. Zunaid©® 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason that these sources haven't been added before the third nomination is that this is the third nomination in as many weeks. Someone has a mission and they aren't going to stop until this article is gone. I imagine the reason its been nominated over and over again is that those that want it deleted so badly do not want other editors to have a chance to add the sources. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, there is real world reference. PeaceNT 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Magic (Harry Potter) the only spells that even have close to the necessary real-world context are Expelliarmus and possibly the unforgiveable curses. Matching up Latin in WP:OR and describing the spells in the detail we have is against WP:PLOT. Will (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag - my opinions on the article are already logged and noted in the other afd, but to specify the crux: no third party, independent sources. Fan sites and JKR, along with one article on about.com, do not count as multiple third party sources. David Fuchs (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major Harry Potter plot element, useful list. NawlinWiki 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:USEFUL. David Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and especially the part: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Melsaran (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is referenced, though not thoroughly, but it verifiable, and using the book as a source is perfectly fine. Additionally, "Spells in Harry Potter" is a complex matter, it is, therefore, reasonably necessary to keep the article with the purpose of explaining the many complicated terms. Without this page it would be hard for the readers to comprehend the bewildering spells used in quite a number of other Harry Potter-related articles, which, in turn, cause them trouble understanding articles, [that is to say the page is needed here on Wikipedia, transwiki-ing to some other Wikis is not a solution] Also, for the record, this material is by no means "fancruft", material on etymology, for example, is entirely encyclopedic. PeaceNT 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF and WP:NOR should be read here. The etymology is the only non-fan reference in the article, and is entirely original research. David Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. PeaceNT 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a possible transwiki. Most of the list is just trivia and, with regards to the etymology, original research. Very few of the spells have any external references, and even those don't actually talk about the spell or the spells role in the series. Most instances is when an editor using the terms or phrases as metaphors to jazz up their writing, much like they would use phrases like jumping the shark or beyond the pale. But such usage of metaphors doesn't denote the notability of the spells, but the metaphors themselves, which would make a much better encyclopedic article. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The same problems remain: no proper sources, questionable notability and relevance (all anyone really needs to know is in Magic (Harry Potter), anything further is just of no possible interest or use to anyone other than Harry Potter fans, and this isn't the Potter wiki, which is where this stuff should be), and seemingly suffering from a major case of OR. In the event of a no-consensus, I hope those saying "keep and improve" will strive to do what they are voting for. Miremare 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of articles that are of no interest to anyone other than fans of their topic. As one who has contributed to many Sonic the Hedgehog articles, I would think you would understand that. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't really contribute much to them, I just keep an eye on them as they tend to attract more than their fair share of crufty additions which, as I'm sure you can tell from these AfDs, is something I don't at all like. But you cannot compare the two, as Sonic the Hedgehog is a notable video game, one of the most important ever, in fact, whereas Spells in Harry Potter are not notable at all outside of the novels in which they appear. Believe me, if someone were to create an article such as Items in Sonic the Hedgehog I would be just as eager to see it removed as I am with this Spells article, as it would fall foul of everything that Spells in Harry Potter does. I really don't have any anti-Harry Potter agenda here, just an anti unencyclopedic non-notable indescriminate list agenda - the subject is completely irrelevant. Miremare 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several people have pledged to do so, beyond just voting like it. It was awfully nice of them. --Kizor 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - saying an article, any article is only of interest or of use to only certain section of population is not an arguement. One can say, given any page that it is only of interest to those interested enough to visit it, by definition. The point is the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KTC 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it's an argument; it's clearly an article created by Harry Potter fans for other Harry Potter fans. There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction. I'm not a fan of astronomy, but the information in the article could still prove useful to me. Miremare 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge(Selectively merge) to Magic (Harry Potter). The major curses are main plot elements (such as the one which left Potter with his scar0 and deserve mention in Magic (Harry Potter). But fans have apparently conducted "fanspew" on this book to show their fondness for it, by creating a listing for many minor spells and jinxes which were used only once, which don't even have proper names, and which were promptly forgotten. Then the listings are padded out with original research about the etymology of each. Only etymology cited to Rowling or to publications about the Potter franchise should be left in the article. It is as unencyclopedic to describe each spell cast in these thousands of pages as to have an article listing each punch thrown in a "Rocky" movie or of each shot fired in an action movie. Notability of the Potter franchise does not percolate down and make every spell in the book notable. Edison 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim to leave only those spells mentioned in the books, on Rowling's website, and maybe the films, as these are arguably the most "canonical". Gut the OR. Wl219 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: I'm with Radiant. The first AfD closing in ten hours wasn't because there was anything wrong with the process; it's because the overwhelming number of Keeps compelled a WP:SNOW decision. This never should have reached a 2nd AfD within the same month, let alone a third.  RGTraynor  19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There isn't much I can say that others haven't already, but I can say that many users, including me, will make sure that the article gets the attention it needs to get it up to code with references and fix any and all spelling and grammar problems and disputes with the new spells. Any further problems should be taken to the talk page. We were in the process of discussing the merge when the second nomination impeded on the conversation. Therequiembellishere 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and smack all involved with these continuous afd's with the mighty wand of Not a battleground, which translated into latin would be fun to say. Kyaa the Catlord 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Help me here, why's it being nominated for deletion? I don't see the point of that. I mean, the article's full, and by all means legitimate. FurrSquee — FurrSquee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, though remove the OR and single-mention spells. Possibly limit to spells with a spoken component (I don't think the books describe apparation as a spell). If the gloriously non-notable lists of Pokemon deserve to be kept as 'occasional exceptions' to the fiction notability guideline, this does as well. In any case, there are masses of third party books and articles about Harry Potter, so finding sourcing for at least some of these should be quite easy.--Nydas(Talk) 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an essay. The Pokemon lists have survived repeated deletion debates, so I'm invoking precedent. It's easy to imagine this being cleaned up to the level of Characters in the Halo series.--Nydas(Talk) 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This precedent means nothing as far as policy or guidelines are concerned. You may as well use that as an excuse to keep any article. Pokemon has many fans editing its articles, and therefore many keep votes to count on, just the same as here. The Pokemon-cruft articles stay regardless of whether they've got any business being in an encyclopedia, because there is "consensus" for them to do so, despite the fact that some of them clearly violate Wikipedia policies. This may sound cynical, but it's difficult, from the perspective of a non-fan, to see the repeated "keep"ing of such indiscriminate unsourced lists of minor fictional characters or items in any other way. Miremare 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument sounds like 'if it has fans , then it must be fancruft'. There are plenty of third party sources for the spells in Harry Potter, see the books mentioned and the links provided above.--Nydas(Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the link to the Characters page, but they are two different types of articles- Characters in the Halo series makes no OR claims, and was spun off because such details cannot go in the video game articles because it would be too large- an exception provided by List of characters... in WP:WAF, I believe (maybe not, I cannot remember). At the same time, it also features plenty of out of universe info- (the entire first section, and more soon, once I get around to it)- the Harry Potter article has only stuff about the spells itself, and the possible meanings in Latin. If all those spells were noted in some big way, not just a fan site, then I could see it having outside relevance from the work and thus notable. In its current way, don't see it happening. David Fuchs (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no special dispensation for lists of characters in the fiction guidelines, they're both lists of fictional things. As for out-of universe stuff, why is The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter or Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays not the equal of The Art of Halo?--Nydas(Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first of all (this is not part of my argument so don't invoke some essay telling me this is an invalid argument, because I'm sure such an essay exists ;)) I am quite surprised that a B-class article of mid-importance to a WikiProject is on AfD. At any rate, as a few others noted, there are quite a few secondary sources about this topic to justify keeping it. That seems to have been the only valid argument (the lack of "real-world sources" as you call them) in this mess. Incidentally, someone said "There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction." - well, ignoring the fact that this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, I have never read The Lord of the Rings but reading through the information of Tolkien's world was quite fascinating to me. ugen64 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of WP:N, which is a fundamental part of any encyclopedia. The Tolkien article can of course be interesting to those who haven't read the books, that's what's intended after all. The same is true of the Harry Potter article, or those of the individual books. But, not being a Tolkien fan, would you be as interested in a list of fictional spells from Lord of the Rings (if there was one)? Miremare 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: The essays are useful because commonly consensus doesn't treat them as good reasons for either deleting or keeping and article. It's somewhat a waste of the closer's time and energy to read them. David Fuchs (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny, it seems that you have just made the point without meaning to. Clearly your issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arguing that you find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter only proves that point. I might find an article about the magic in Tolkein to be interesting. But if I personally didn't it wouldn't mean it wasn't notable. Arguments about whether or not you personally find it interesting go directly to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Where did I say I find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter? Secondly you may very well find an article about magic in Lord of the Rings interesting, and the Harry Potter equivalent of that is Magic (Harry Potter), not Spells in Harry Potter which is an indiscriminate list of individual spells, of interest only to existing fans (which is not what an encyclopedia is for), rather than an overview of the magic itself. Miremare 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Repeating comments in previous AfD: while I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells. Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep. Also, I must say that I find Radiant!'s analysis for a speedy keep particularly compelling, if only because all the time that's been wasted over the last couple weeks putting this article to relentless and repeated deletion attempts could have instead been spent on the article itself (and other articles!) -- and undeniably would have contributed far more to Wikipedia had it been spent thusly. Ashdog137 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or transwiki. I'm appalled; this is absolutely not an encyclopedia article. This is a directory of fancruft - Wikipedia is not a directory. It is entirely based on primary or irrelevant sources and consists of nothing but original research. It should be noted that most of the keep arguments that have flooded this AFD discussion are based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or that all three of the previous discussions were speedily closed for whatever reason - the first AFD was withdrawn, and the second had valid concerns that still apply to this AFD. This is no longer a speedy keep candidate, either. --Coredesat 23:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- per my comments in the two previous AfDs. --Boricuaeddie 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, preferably after a transwikiThis is a very interesting and useful list. However, it is not an encyclopedia article. There are specialized wikis for this. Wikipedia is not one of them. i said 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, the mention of the Latin words' meanings, in my opinion, can hardly be considered original research. PeaceNT 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
This AfD, as with all fiction debates I've yet come across, seems to boil down to two deletion arguments: WP:OR and WP:FICT. Can I first challenge someone to read WP:DEL#REASON and point out which of those points covers original research?? Articles qualify for deletion under WP:OR if and only if they contain pure original research with no possibility of the research ever being removed. Leaving aside the question of whether a knowledge of elementary Latin qualifies as Original Research, even if anything which even looked like OR was removed, all that would go is the etymologies. Everything else can be saved by the application of ludicrous numbers of OOTP Ch.{{{ch}}}, [PS Ch.{{{ch}}}], etc tags, or a reference section six feet long. This article does not qualify for deletion under WP:OR.
Now for WP:FICT. Quite aside from the explicit statement "The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable"['above options' refering to, among other things, transwiki; my emphasis] which quite precludes anyone arguing for "delete" without prepending "transwiki or..."; let us take a quick count of the sources and references present on this page and the article in question. We have three references to direct comments from JK Rowling. We have a reference from the BBC (and, incidentally, there's another one that I'm going to add as soon as I've finished typing this). We have thirteen references to a hardcopy published work. Then we have, above, another published work that could be used for the same purpose, with an assurance that it soon will be. A quick search of Amazon.com reveals numerous other non-fiction works about Harry Potter which may be of varying degrees of utility. We have six Google News references that a helpful user found in two minutes searching - has anyone considered actually looking for some more?? We have, therefore, at my best guess, 11 separate secondary sources and at least three tertiary sources. Let's try and make this article better rather than just trying to make the problem go away. (Derogatory comment removed - please stay civil. --B. Wolterding 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)) Rebuke accepted, phrase reworded. Happy-melon 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and incidentally, please let's not close this early! The last thing this article needs is ANOTHER DRV/AfD. Let's have a full five-day debate and lay this matter to rest. Happy-melon 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I agree that original research is not generally a reason for deleting an article - merely for improving it to meet WP:OR- however that can only be done when the topic of the article meets other important guidelines WP:NN, WP:RS, etc. In this case I would say that the article fails WP:NN and even if it did pass based on the sources found so far, the information the article would have to be cut down to such an extent that it would not necesitate an individual article and could be merged into the Harry Potter Magic article. however I would say the following points in WP:DEL#REASON could be seen to cover original research when regarded in a certain way: 1) "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" - very general but per WP:OR original research is not considered suitable for an encylopaedia. 2) "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" - if something does not meet WP:NN then secondary sources cannot be found, if sources other than the editor cannot be found then the article could be assumed to be original research by default. 3) "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" AND "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" - pretty much the same as above, without relaible soures an article is likely to be largely original research.

I'm not saying that these apply here but in my opinion, that's how the deletion guidelines consider original research. [[Guest9999 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Response - I don't disagree - an article without any reliable sources must be OR. However, the biggest single problem I have with WP:FICT is that it completely and utterly discounts the canon itself as a reliable source (or at least it's interpreted that way). Surely it is incontravertable that the best source of evidence for what, say, the Expelliarmus charm does has got to be the text itself!?! That is Rowling's definitive treastise on the subject! As WP:FICT stands, what I assume it is trying to say (there are BIG problems if it isn't!) is that secondary sources are required for evidence of notability, while primary sources (the books) are satisfactory sources for actual details. If this is not what it's saying, and it's trying to say that all articles about Harry Potter must reference without using the books at all for any reason, then the problems with WP:FICT are even greater than I believe! This is what I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting WP:FICT as. Almost everything in this article can be referenced to the books, and (if necessary) will be, although it will involve the addition of a ludicrous number of [PS Ch.{{{ch}}}] and OOTP Ch.{{{ch}}} tags. That can be done, and proves that there is little true OR in this article (I have found some, but not much, and as soon as this debate is over it will die a painful death). The only way it can be argued that the whole article is OR is if the books are completely discounted as sources, which is ridiculous. Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply WP:FICT only restates WP:NN as it applies to fiction, remember these things do not actually exist - the book is a primary source. My main issue here is that I just do not think that these articles simply do not belong in Wikipedia (per the guidelines). They may well be interesting, useful and fun but that does not mean they belong in an enclopaedia (which wikipedia is WP:5P). They would be very useful and informative as part of a Harry Potter Wiki or fansite - the information on such a fansite would probably be more complete and informative specificly because it did not have to conform to the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not an universal depository of all information WP:NOT#INFO and trying to shoehorn in information that does not meet the guidelines in the end helps no one - least of all those who would hope to gain from that information. [[Guest9999 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete Spells in Harry Potter does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There is no real world significance. "Keep - find sources" is not an acceptable thing to say at an AFD. If you want the article kept, you find the sources. The closing admin is not a verification service. Jay32183 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that as of now, there are now fifteen completely reliable, news-based sources referenced in this article, plus a number of other references of questionable, but arguable reliability. Let's everyone please resist the temptation to assume that a fictional article cannot possibly have comprehensive secondary source coverage, and actually look at the facts. Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those "sources" were added before I made my assessment. Jay32183 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so you choose to ignore them completely? Or did you mean to say "after I made my assessment"?? Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore them. I include them when I say there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. After adding those fifteen, there are still zero that allow this article to stand on its own. Jay32183 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the sources added to the article so far I think that a lot of the don't actually meet WP:RS a lot of them are things like the Harry Potter Lexicon - a fan site which doesn't meet WP:RS, [39], [40], [41]; Mugglenet - another fansite [42], an Emma Watson fansite, [43] as well as one which is just a dictionary definition,a site where anyone can post content - [44], self described blogcritics [45], a blogger for a minor newspaper [46], things from the authors and continuity editors of the books (if everything an author described warranted and article... etc.) [47], [48], there are also several sources which take the form of a quiz on sopell names which don't actually give any information except for what the spell names supposedly mean they are on the BBC but I'm not sure if this kind of childrens quiz qualifies as an article endorsing source [49], [50], [51], then there is what I think is another fansite [52] - but it's a 'chat' with the author anyway. I think that just leaves the book "Wizard Words: The Literary, Latin, and Lexical Origins of Harry Potter’s Vocabulary" which does not make for multiple secondary sources as layed out in WP:NN. [[Guest9999 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

OK, I'll go through the list again and try and balance that argument (which you can't deny is a little NPOV). [53] HP lexicon - no one is claiming this is a reliable source - it's an extra left over from before. It is, however, possibly the best-referenced and most reliable HP reference site there is. However, to give you every advantage, let's ignore hp-lexicon.com. You'll note that those references weren't even included on my list of 15 reliable sources. [54], please note the comment. This is not a work published by mugglenet, it is in fact a transcript of a BBC television program. Given that other copies of the transcript are doubtless available, the real provenance of this source is not mugglenet but the BBC. That makes it rather harder for you to dismiss. [55], I'm sorry but what gives you the right to dismiss entirely a widely published interview with the Japanese media purely because it's reprinted on a fansite?? I have, incidentally, the same interview repeated word-for-word on Radcliffe's official site ([56]), Grint's official site ([57]), and what I think is an article about the interview in Japanese from the actual news company ([58]) although of course I can't read it so I can't be sure. Then I don't care how minor it is, your "blogger for a minor newspaper" ([59]) is still writing for a published, referenced and accountable journal, and hence qualifies as a reliable source. Vide Rowling's direct quotes ([60] and [61]), I would argue that the latter is a useful source because it describes the sheer scale of the fan following for Harry Potter. However, again to give you every advantage possible, note that these two sources are used only for factual verification of the descriptions of some spells, not for notability purposes. Finally, the BBC articles. How you can throw these out is quite beyond me. The BBC thinks that Spells in Harry Potter are sufficiently notable to devote three pages to them, one way or another. That should be all the justification required. However, think about the true implications of a quiz format. Not only does the BBC think that HP spells are notable, they think that these spells are so notable that the majority of visitors to that page will have enough knowledge to be able to take a quiz on them. Let me finally quote something from WP:RS that supports my argument:

As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

. That is the criterion for assessing reliability. The target audience has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that the BBC did not check these pages for factual errors and legal issues as thoroughly as any of their other pages? Are you claiming that the Huffington Post does not check for factual errors? The Japanese press? Rowling herself? Then finally, we have the published book, which you quite rightly didn't even try to attack (as you would have failed miserably). So after all that, and after giving you every possible advantage and swinging every debatable point your way, you've managed to write off TWO sources. So we have 13 left. Your serve. Happy-melon 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter? The index (viewable on Amazon) mentions Arithmancy, Animagus (4 times), Aveda Kedevra (twice), Charms (4 times), Dark Arts (twice), Divination (5 times), Fidelius Charm, Latin (16 times), Patronus (3 times) and Unforgivable Curses (twice).--Nydas(Talk) 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Can someone please get it so we can add another incontavertable reference to this article? Guest9999 above didn't even feel able to take a crack at the other hardcopy source we've got. Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I do think it's possible that the Huffington Press didn't check for factual errors in a personal blog. The BBC quiz claims to give definitions of spell names - too be honest this just seems odd considering the answers - if they had asked what the spells did the answers would have made more sense. I also would say that the mugglenet source shouldn't be used to establish notability - it is still a fansite and I don't think it can be verified. Even considering the current sources that have been established I still do not see that this topic warrents an individual article. Also a lot of publications which can be considered "accountable journal[s]" by your definition do not count as reliable sources - school newspapers are bound by laws of libel and copyright - but everything written about in a school newspaper isn't then considered notable.[[Guest9999 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete - I feel that this is a fancruft list that serves primarily a very small subset of editors (Potterfans). As such, I cast my lot for the Dalek side of the argument. However, it is more than likely we'll end with a call of No Consensus. --Agamemnon2 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry. If it ends with no consensus, someone will nominae it again next week and you can try again.nut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read WP:CRUFT (which, incidentally, is an essay with no binding authority) you'll notice it has a whole section on how Cruft status does not qualify as grounds for deletion, and another on what to do with crufty articles (get to work on them!). Having read that properly your argument, Agamemnon, becomes WP:IDONTLIKEITHappy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expecto Patronum against those who woud suck the soul out of Wikipedia and make it a depressing place where all cheer and hope is gone. Seriously, keep, due to a huge amount of real-world notability from reliable sources, as demonstrated by nearly every "keep" argument above, and the consensus of hundreds of Wikipedia editors, only a small fraction of whom have the time and energy to expend defending this article against continual nominations for deletion. DHowell 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major, I would say essential, part of a HUGE series. The magic and spells in Harry Potter play as big a role as any teacher in the series. If we are going to cover the series in a comprehensive manner, demanding that it be without coverage of the magic used is going to be a rather meaningless restriction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be merged or the magic article is too longnut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging does not mean tacking one article onto another, it means selecting the important parts from the first and including them in the second. Once the single-mention spells and other trivial entries are pruned, there are no space problems. Miremare 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) There are no inherent verifiablity problems, as the information can be verified by reading the books themselves. Using the primary source is not only acceptable, but necessary in cases like this, as the existence of a spell in a book is a simple fact rather than original interpretation. As an analogy, would we require secondary sources to verify a List of characters in Hamlet? I think not. As others have said elsewhere, the spells can be considered "characters" in these books, and a list of them is valid content in an encyclopedia article. In this case the list was split off for practical reasons of article size, not necessarily because of the "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) importance of the topic; in a paper encyclopedia, this content might be included as a sidebar, table, or appendix. 2) The list membership criteria should be obvious from the title, as this is a relatively short list and every spell in the books can be included. It's not like a List of people from the United Kingdom, which would be too large in principle and would require inclusion criteria. 3) The final concern in the nomination seems to be notability. While it is true that "notability is not inherited", some of it may be. Remember that there are many millions of fans, and many thousands at least will be interested in a list of spells. This interest can be verified from secondary sources such as websites that have been mentioned. Sure, there is no Britannica article with a list of spells, but WP is different because it is not paper and it has more people writing the articles than Britannica does. Using some websites for recent, popular-culture topics seems legitimate to me; not every conceivable Wikipedia topic has an academic journal devoted to it! Finally, some comments who use the *cruft argument have said things like "who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?". But we have many articles on much more obscure topics on quantum physics or mathematics and (fortunately) no one wants to delete them with the argument that "who cares about it besides theoretical physicists?". I would bet that there are more Harry Potter fans that theoretical physicists. --Itub 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly well argued, Itub - your analogies are much better than any I have been able to assemble. I took the liberty of linking some of your points to relevant policy - I hope you don't mind. It presents a forceful and cohesive argument. Thankyou!! Happy-melon 14:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1- all the latin descriptions are WP:OR and not verifiable, unless Rowling states so or whatnot. The primary sources are not a problem; the lack of out of universe info and secondary sources (see WP:RS) are. David Fuchs (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter devotes a few pages to the Latin translations (I flipped through an old copy today).--Nydas(Talk) 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin materials are NOT original research. Those translations can be found in any dictionaries, there is absolutely no need for Rowling to specify the meaning of each Latin word she uses. PeaceNT 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response (edit conflict!) Verifiability isn't the problem. Notability is the problem, and the fact that this is an indiscriminate list, listing ALL spells regardless of how useful or notable they are. The "interest" argument, which seems to be being misinterpreted by some, is that these spells are of possible interest only to Harry Potter fans, whereas you don't have to be a "fan" of quantum physics to find that article useful and informative. Encyclopedia articles should be written for readers who have no knowledge of the subject concerned, as an introduction to the subject, not for fans of the subject. That's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. The above argument seems to be based entirely on WP:NOTPAPER, which could be used as an argument for keeping anything. Miremare 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That's an extremely turgid and speculative argument; a case could absolutely be made that there are those who aren't hardcore HP fans who might find a spell list interesting, while those not versed in mathematics or physics could readily find a quantum physics article dull or impenetrable ... and it is extremely unlikely that someone who lacked an interest in either case would find the article "useful." Frankly, the notability of the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time shouldn't be a "problem," it should be overwhelming.  RGTraynor  16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the notability of "the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time" isn't up for debate. What you are refering to is magic, and that is covered in Magic (Harry Potter). These individual spells are not notable of themselves. Those that are should be covered in Magic (Harry Potter). Miremare 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict, as well!) This argument is nonsensical to me -- how can you make this "interest" argument? People without an interest in quantum physics are no more or less likely to read an article on quantum physics than people without an interest in Harry Potter would a Harry Potter article, and the converse is true as well. For example, let's say I'm a linguist with an interest in how dead languages are being used in modern culture -- voila, this article is of interest to me, even though I may despise (or may have never heard of!) Harry Potter. That argument boils down to I don't want to read this, so nobody else would, which is not only no valid reason to delete an article, but is no more true for any one article than any other article anywhere on Wikipedia. Ashdog137 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (damn these edit conflicts!) So in other words, never delete anything because someone might want to read it? And let's not even get into the questionable "Latin" part of the article, presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. I'd be very interested to hear a convincing argument on how a non-Harry Potter fan can find this article useful in any way. As for "interest" please read again my comment about who an encyclopedia is written for. Miremare 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response You misconstrue my challenge to your argument -- there are plenty of valid reasons to delete articles, but "I don't like it and don't see why anyone would want to read it" isn't one. As for a non-fan finding the entry useful, see the argument I just made above -- I'm not a Potter fan, and that's exactly why I came to visit this article, and I found it enlightening. But, since you want to discard all etymology, let's go with the easier, simpler argument -- as can be clearly told from the references in the article, Harry Potter spells are getting significant coverage in major news outlets (e.g. BBC), which reflects the fact that they're in open and frequent use in popular society. A non-fan may have encountered a reference to a spell in everyday interactions and desire to get some background on what that reference meant -- voila, another reason why a non-fan would want to read this article, and precisely what people turn to encyclopediae for. Ashdog137 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response that's very possible, and exactly what the Magic (Harry Potter) article should be for. Very few of theses spells even approach notability in the real world (even given the argument that a mention in a BBC online kids' quiz can equal notability) and should be covered in the Magic (Harry Potter). Everything else is fancruft, of interest to fans only, pure and simple. Miremare 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I guess that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree -- as a non-fan, I found the content of interest, so I cannot concede that point to you, particularly not in such broad, sweeping, uncompromising terms. Ashdog137 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. Verifiability, not truth. If there are two or three sources reporting what a spell means, that's what we go for.--Nydas(Talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nydas, and, I might add, the article won't tell you what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean., it only provides relevant information on the background of the Latin words used in Harry Potter spells. This is the exact type of material suitable for an encyclopedia. PeaceNT 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Etymology" refers to the history and development of a word, therefore you do need to know what the author intended them to mean, otherwise you are misleading readers into taking speculation as fact, which is not suitable practise for an encyclopedia. Miremare 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? does anyone have any of these books that people keep talking about as sources, if so does anyone know anything about them other than that they exist - the publisher, how many copies have sold, are they independent of the material, are they speculation, do the contradict each other, can they be deemed a reliable source? The fact that's something is in print doesn't mean that it's an independent reliable seocndary source which goes towards a subject's notability. [[Guest9999 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • My god, is it really so hard to do a Google search?
The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter
The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter
Beacham's Sourcebook For Teaching Young Adult Fiction: Exploring Harry Potter
Harry Potter Through the Looking Glass
Seriously, the Amazon links were first or second on every search. GlassCobra 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was really asking more for how they may be viewed in terms of WP:RS in order to establish notability - I thought the case for this could be made better by editors who have read the books and are familiar with Wikipedia policy than by Amazon. Incidentally none of those books seems to be about spells, the spells simply being mentioned an aspect of something larger such as magic in Harry Potter or Harry Potter in general, if at all.[[Guest9999 03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
That's not the point. A book about quantum mechanics in general, which mentions the Uncertainty Principle, is a perfectly reliable source on Uncertainty principle, assuming it's properly verified, fact-checked, etc. Not all reliable sources have to be peer-reviewed journals, Guest9999, much as you might like them to be. Happy-melon 10:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the point. Notability is having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic, WP:N. For a source to be reliable it must go through some editorial process. A self-published book by a non-expert is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. We need to know the publishers of the books, and the contents of the books. Jay32183 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has several sources in this case noe, is more notable and quite frankly it would be way too long if we have to merge with the main article or other various articles.--JForget 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harry Potter series became a part of our culture, and there had been books that describe on the effects of the curses and spells being used in the series. The books are sufficient enough as sources of these information, and please, stop nominating this one for deletion. I also read on the notability, the usefulness, and I think, not only in Wikipedia but also on other encyclopedias, each of us has our own interest -- for instance some articles seem to be boring to one person and interesting on another. Remember, in the case of Quantum Physics, for example, not all people are interested on that. And may I suggest that instead of deleting this one, can we just edit and improve this page and include its real life attributes, if any? Chitetskoy 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReductoDelete: unencyclopedic fancruft. David Mestel(Talk) 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) for my arguments. Melsaran (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep and CLEANUP, This article is "important" and deserves to be an article. It provides information about the spells in HP and background info on other things. There is no obvious reason for deletion, there are sources im Sure however they are just not listed. It can be improved greatly only if someone takes the time to do so. Once debate is over I will be happy to find and cite some sources, so as of now this is on my watch page and as i said when debate is over i will begin cleanup, as I am sure will many others. **Ko2007** 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the right attitude to take, Ko2007, but why wait until the AfD is over? Help us improve this article now!! Happy-melon 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tracking down the sources and citing them will be time consuming. Why take the time if it is only going to be deleted? The main reason it keeps being nominated for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as is shown by the fact that those who want it deleted have nominated it three times this month. If it were just a matter of poor sourcing, it would have been nominated for improvement, not deletion. nut-meg 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the article being nominated three times in a month. This is true however this is the only AfD where debate has been allowed to continue over the normal AfD time frame. [[Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Indeed. It's not that the article has been nominated in three separate situations, more like this is a single situation where three AfDs were formatted. It's really just a technical issue, and is different from a typical article that is repeatedly AfD'ed. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that sources have been found that show that the topic meets the primary notability criteria; there is also none of the real world content mentioned in the specific fiction criteria. Almost all of the more reputable sources mentioned seem to refer to spells as an aspect of something greater and notability is not inherited. The magic in Harry Potter covers spells and I think that is sufficient. As it is the current article is full of original research especially the etymology entries which seem to be new synthesis of published material by editors, if editors think that in the future more sources and information will become available then that might be a good reason to userfy the article but not to keep it as a part of Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment I am not convinced that looking up a word in a dictionary or translating something is original research. We do it all the time for articles about foreign-language topics, and for good reason. --Itub 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent positional play there, Guest9999, leaving your !vote until right at the end. However, whether or not you're convinced, a substantial part of the 90kB of this page (which incidentally will outsize the actual article if it goes on much longer) is devoted to showing quite clearly the wealth of reliable sources that exist for spells in Harry Potter. Of course most of these sources "refer to spells as an aspect of something else" - to use the quantum mechanics analogy that seems to be floating around in this AfD a lot, how many books do you think talk only about one obscure aspect of QM like Weyl quantization? None - instead all the references consider a broader aspect of QM in which parts are useful, reliable sources for each subarticle of quantum mechanics. However, unlike Weyl quantization, whatever the hell that is, this article also has hardcopy references which do specifically cover spells and spellcasting. Also unlike Weyl quantization, Spells in Harry Potter is 142nd on the list of most-visited pages on Wikipedia, wheras I suspect Weyl quantisation will be somewhere down the 1.5 million mark.
This will be the third time that I've pointed out that presence or even preponderance of Original Research is never a grounds for deletion. The addition of references to this text is progressing, hampered only by the sheer quantity of good material to reference. The argument about etymologies is sound, but even if it were determined that they represented pure original research, that would not be any grounds for deletion of the whole article.
All in all, then, Guest9999, although each of your points flags up a problem with the article, none of them indicates a legitimate ground for deletion. Rewrite, yes; prune, yes; reference, yes; delete, no. I'm afraid I can't get over the suspicion that you just DONTLIKEIT. Happy-melon 11:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists with Young

List of artists with Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a rather indiscriminate list of information. These artists are primarily notable for reasons other than their name starting with "Young" or "Yung". Spellcast 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 5 deletes and 3 keeps. The keep rationales were not given as much weight because they were based on supporting the content of the article and not Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in Watchmen

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

Delete because, as the article itself states, it's nothing but a "detailed descriptions of chapters in the graphic novel Watchmen." That's it, just an abridgement of fiction. This violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT, not to mention copyright law, as there is no fair use justification for copying story elements without a transformative, real-world informative context. Watchmen, a featured article, already contains a sufficiently descriptive summary of the graphic novel's story, so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Postdlf 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not redundant: Watchmen has a complex formal structure on both the visual and verbal levels, and this article explicates it (at least, it is heading in that direction), whereas the main Watchmen article just mentions it. The useful bits are pointing out the relevance of cross-references etc, rather than the plot summaries. PaddyLeahy 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. good summary style-Peregrine Fisher 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being 99% plot it violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT and infringes copyright. There is also nowhere I think it can be transwikied too (because the copyright issues would arise anywhere within Wikimedia) but might be worth saving for a fan site (although they probably already have this covered). (Emperor 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep — unlike Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, I think that this article may have room for sufficient out-of-universe context and sourced critical commentary to justify its existence independent from the main Watchmen article. Several of the sources used for the featured article Watchmen have specific commentary on individual chapters. Another possible source is the recent article in Wizard magazine in which folks like Ed Brubaker and David Goyer discuss Watchmen, going into some detail about its narrative structure and critically discussing individual chapters. If the article is deleted, I'd recommend that it be userfied so that the contributors can add relevant sources and re-submit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request.. Carlossuarez46 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec Hip Hop artists

List of Quebec Hip Hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recommended deletion per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TILE64

TILE64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Speedy keep, definitely notable. [66] [67] [68] [69]
Tilera creativity to do a 64 core processor while Intel and AMD only did 4 core until today, makes more than notable, but also part of computing history. Carlosguitar 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per other sources plus Technology Guardian's article on them, which actually goes out of its way to clarify that parallel processing has been around since the INMOS transputer, so what the company is doing is nothing new; that software for these processors will be ages away. If I am not mistaken, advertorials are designed to market a product positively and not suggest its developments are just improvements on achievements made in the 80s ("advertisers will not spend money to describe the flaws of their products"). Rubberkeith 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilera

Tilera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. — Dbromage [Talk] 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative_957

AfDs for this article:
Initiative_957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the Washington State Secretary of State's election website, I-957 has been withdrawn by the sponsor. Also, WA-DOMA's website appears to have been closed down. If the initiative is dead and will not be on the ballot, I believe this article is no longer relevant. TechBear 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had to look for the list of initiatives proposed on the 2007 ballot, which I found at the Secretary of State's web site. Sure enough, 957 was withdrawn by the sponsor. Some of the others are interesting as well, like Initiative 971, which would mandate surgically implanting a GPS chip into the body of any violent criminal. Since Initiative 957 was withdrawn by the sponsor, and since anyone can apparently submit a ballot initiative whether it makes it onto the ballot or not, I vote to delete this article. Also, the initiative sponsors should be told not to disrupt state government in order to prove a point. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and Comment. Notability is not temporary. Even if a proposal such as this does not proceed, if it received substantial news coverage then it is notable. Dbromage [Talk] 06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dbromage makes a good point that notability is not temporary. When I-957 was filed, it received worldwide attention; I think that merits inclusion and would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion. TechBear 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlkemper's

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

Seems to be a non-notable catalog showroom chain in Pennsylvania. Tagged for importance and orphan since April with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough info --Caldorwards4 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1 patent nonsense, g3 vandalism. Come on, "Claymore Research Association of Pennsylvania (CRAP)"? "Franz Beckenbauer Institute"? NawlinWiki 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Ray-Chaudhuri

Vijay Ray-Chaudhuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete hoax article about a supposed Nobel Prize winner, was tagged speedy but despite much debate suspected or real hoaxes are not speedy candidates. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Sieunarine

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

Minor TV actor, no starring roles anywhere. PROD tag added, undeleted by User:Lectonar after being contested. Should be a speedy, really. Calton | Talk 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We thank you for brining this to our attention, and we realize that Seth only appeared on television as a child, be he is also a prominent model in his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. We ask that you please not delete his page as he is still continuing with his modelling career. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.23.100 (talk) 12:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sporting events

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

Indiscriminate collection of info, so violating WP:NOT#INFO - ALL events in ALL sports? There is already Category:Sports events or even Category:Current sports events available instead Paulbrock 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tyree

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

Sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete seems like a resumé, yet a lot of different people seem to have edited his page in the past, which might imply some degree of importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 03:57, August 21, 2007.
  • Delete - Yeah but the mayority of the where anon users, probably local fans or a fanclub. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the anon user who removed the tag. I did comment on why (article's talk page)- I planned on attempting to improve the article by adding sources, but have not had time. I vote to keep as the article is fixable. I've already started compiling sources for the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 13:40, August 21, 2007.
  • Okay, geocities can go. But 3:am, Bookmunch, time out new york (still compiling here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 21, 2007.
  • A short events listing -- of which the subject is only a participant, no less -- probably generated by a press release (Time Out) and an unsigned listing of some sort (3 A.M.)? These are your sources? You're truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also at www.dogmatika.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

  • DELETE - Vanity Press author with little credit. No reliable sources from respected sites. Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself, this cannot be considered anything other than self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 21, 2007.
  • "Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself". Where? Link please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:15, August 21, 2007.
  • I was asking where these self reviews are. I can't find them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
  • That's unfair for a few reasons. 1. that isn't a review, it's an interview. 2. although it quotes from some sources that said favorable things, it isn't in itself 'favorable'. It's an interview. 3. that interview has been there for years, but (per his blog) he only got the job at bookmunch a couple months ago (june 1). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 20:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)


"His debut novel, Mr. Overby is Falling (PublishAmerica), was favorably compared to Fight Club and American Psycho" this is my favourite line. I've been unfortunate enough to read that book and if some respected critic compares it favourably I'll eat my hand. Can anyone find a reference for such a claim? And if it is out there, have they researched who said it?


  • Five mionutes on google gave me both favorable and unfavorable comparisons to this book and Fight Club.

Don't think any of those are PRO reviewers (but I don't think that the article said that they were).


http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655 http://awriterscult.com/community/showthread.php?t=14772&page=4 http://www.weirdears.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=42296 http://uk.geometry.net/search_ad.php?mode=books&searchtype=list&search=R399J77RLML7ES&productname=Best%20thrillers%20of%202006 www.librarything.com/work/7528 blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=82916927&blogID=142039761&Mytoken=A9

The big seems to be here: http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655

"Obviously Mr. Overby is a dark and at times unpleasant and horrific book. There are hints of Bret Easton Ellis (particularly American Psycho) but also Chuck Palahniuk (who is a big fan of yours) and Jean Paul-Sartre (particularly Nausea)." -Peter Wild


"A few of my friends first latched on to you as a result of spotting you mentioned on the Chuck Palahniuk website. How do you feel about all of the fans you've garnered as a result of the Chuckmeister's patronage? " - Peter Wild —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 

   * Neither of these sources give 'favourable' reviews in comparison. They say that there are elements of similarities, but these do not favour Tyree's writing over Fight Club or American Psycho.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk) 10:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong- I actually now lean toward deletion. He isn't that notable. But, there is a lack of civility here and despite the fellows lack of notoriety there is no need to to get snarky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Reviews on Amazon and such sites can easily be manipulated as has been done before. Indeed, reviewers of his book may have been created purely to give favourable reviews, many have only done one review - his book. No hard evidence but definatly possible. References above are unusual. Is there any reference to show Chuck's approval of Tyree as this interviewer suggests? And isn't this reference you've given the same as Tyree's own?

I don't think it's Tyree's own, as it were. That suggestion has been in the article since it's inception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk)

This 76.7.196.230 appears to be his ip 63.76.154.130 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point!

  • KEEP - and this is why:
All the above Delete comments use a reason such as "appears to be" or my favorite, "probably local fans or a fanclub." Unless those can be demonstrated, there is no defined reason to delete. Yes, the article is UGLY, but it has also been around for more than a year and a half. If it's so non-notable, why is it only now up for deletion? Vanity articles on Wikipedia tend to be deleted very fast!
I am not saying that I think this is particularly notable, but this entire longwinded argument is empty, baseless, and biased from a strong "I know better and my view is the only view" POV. All the "appears" and "probablys" in the world are worthless unless backed up. The above sounds like the article itself, unreferenced. Instead of whining about it, put the unreferenced tag on the article (note: Nobody had done that even... is that laziness or oversight?) and ee what happens.
My Keep is with the provision that the article needs to continue to be improved and it needs to become better referenced. I think Wikipolocy is perfectly sufficient for that. Perhaps in another month or so this issue can be revisited, but the time is not right now for the lynch mob to unilaterally delete an article with a no-substance (false) rationale.
VigilancePrime 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author" uses the phrase "appears to be"? Which part of that defined reason did you miss during your vigorous handwaving? And speaking of missing the point, regarding your faith-based rationale: nope, you've got it backwards: the onus is on the ones making the claims of notability to back them, not for detractors to disprove them. To recap:
  • Vanity-press (PublishAmerica) author.
  • No reliable sources (see above for the dissections)
  • No evidence of real-world impact or notice -- and it's the responsibility of anyone claiming otherwise to offer evidence to the contrary.
  • I would also like to question Peter Wild, who is he? All significant quotes mentioned stem from him. Please give a link to his profile and resume of success in literary reviews for weight to his descriptions of Tyree's efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.102.252 (talk)


Okay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/04/26/260407_mif_perverted_feature.shtml


http://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=900252


http://www.wordriot.org/template_2.php?ID=1177

http://www.serpentstail.com/content_item?id=136

63.76.154.130 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Guardino

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because same person and content:

Rich Gaurdino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible hoax or semi-subtle attack pages with same content and creator. I cannot find verifiable references, though conceivably that is due to the age and college/minor league nature. Parts seem dubious, but organizations mentioned do or did exist. There are archival references to San Jose baseball Rich Guardino playing 1974-1977 as Hall of Fame inductee in 1997, versus the article's claimed playspan of 1966-1968 and induction in 2004. One claim is clearly inaccurate: the Little Falls Mets existed from 1977-1988, so Guardino could not have spent 1969-1971 there. On the WP roundup, fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Michael Devore 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Christopher

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

Just another business executive, and also unreferenced. Note too the heavily self-promoting tone. Biruitorul 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of reliable sources. If someone can find suitable sources, feel free to create a rewritten version, citing those sources. — TKD::Talk 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Os Cangaceiros

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

Practically unreadable screed about some anarchists. The single "source" only has one Google hit that I can tell, which doesn't inspire much confidence. I see no real notability, and no hope of salvaging the article. Biruitorul 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If you delete their article, they will officially cease to exist, because there will then be no information about them for people (spies?) to research. Therefore they will go away, just ask the Ostrich. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems non-notable, if they did all they did there would be at least 10,000

g-hits. -FlubecaTalk 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... There's 4 times that many. Try looking under "Les Fossoyeurs du vieux monde" Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep for now, could potentially be an encyclopedic topic though NOT in its current barely-readable form. I can't even figure out from the article how important or notable this strange little group actually was...K. Lásztocska 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry row

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

Author with one published book who fails to meet notability guidelines UnfriendlyFire 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral The article should be edited for the author's forth coming novels. The author's book is surely published [74]. See google results, The author's book is available at all lead online book store. [75]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BalanceRestored (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as G11 (spam), copyvio of forum post, and A7 non-notable web site.

GEwar Times

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

Delete it is not entirely clear what this article is about but whatever it is it's not notable and the spam links have been removed so that we're no longer invited to click them and "donate". It's been speedied under a few different names several times but keeps coming back so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confused; you were the one that deleted the first version of this page, citing CSD. Why does this second incarnation not get speedied as well? I had already tagged it as such, and you replaced it with this. GlassCobra 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Adding references to the article, though, would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert "Bert" Weaver

Herbert "Bert" Weaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even the tournament he won doesn't have an article. #311 in list of highest grossing golfers -- in a sport which tends to be dominated by a few people for decades. Scott.wheeler 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You might want to take a look at the PGA Tour page. There are a number of reasons why a specific weekly tour event might not be particularly notable. (For instance if there was a more important event the same week.) I can't find any record of the event in 1965 (though, to be clear I actually don't doubt that it happened or that Weaver won it) and only a few statistics about Weaver from 1970 on. And apparently the 311 above was just for that tour. Overall he ranks #511. Even golf sites don't mention his wins and I can't find a single article about him. Scott.wheeler 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's verification of his Jacksonville win (although one needs to pay to see the whole article). If any soccer player who has appeared in only one match at the highest level is considered notable enough for a WP article, I think anyone who has earned a PGA Tour card—and, even more so, won a PGA tournament that in other years was won by such golfers as Sam Snead and Gary Player—is sufficiently notable as well. Deor 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO and agree that winning a PGA tour event clearly establishes notability. It was not a minor event with a player such as Tony Jacklin winning the event in 1968 showing that the highest level of players did compete at the tournament. Davewild 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenzig Leal

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

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already tried that and was reverted by band fans rapidly. Eleland 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with main article. If they keep reverting, the page can be protected. --Hdt83 Chat 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Hdt83. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unsourced POV, so not worth a merge. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Goldberg

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

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already tried that and was reverted by band fans rapidly. Eleland 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge If they revert it again, just give them a link to this AFD (If it passes) -FlubecaTalk 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Flubeca. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Merryman (drummer)

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

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Aviation (Pakistan)

Lynx Aviation (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Pakistani charter airline fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairboy (talk • contribs)

Coast Run

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

Advertising, not encyclopedic or notable Eran of Arcadia 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the historical information with Earle Page College. A long running charity event is notable but it's too spammy and doesn't really need its own article unless sufficient sources can be cited. I know it receives media coverage each year (example) but none is cited. And I say this as an alumnus of Earle Page College! Dbromage [Talk] 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the entry was improperly listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21. Some comments not added directly to the article's own AfD page were not recorded. Dbromage [Talk] 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete remove ths soapbox advertising or delete it.Rlevse 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Barbie

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO, unless having sex with your sister is a valid niche. Has only been in the industry for six years and doesn;t seem to have done anything notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an achievement. There's been one for every month since 1970. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's an achievement, it's still a valid criteria for WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not an award. It's a badge, basically. The Grabbies are awards. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should possibly be made clearer but when PORNBIO mentions magazine awards, it does specifically mean being a centrefold of the month. If you disagree with this criteria, you'll have to debate this on the PORNBIO talk page. Epbr123 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please do not delete. Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_21&oldid=152703162"