Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Snakese (talk | contribs)
125 edits
add Patrik Lindberg
Snakese (talk | contribs)
125 edits
Line 106: Line 106:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minority Time}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minority Time}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik Lindberg}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik Lindberg}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle City RM2k}}

Revision as of 23:52, 3 November 2007

< November 2 November 4 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Blatant hoax. The evidence is convincing enough to delete this one early. Singularity 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bobley

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

Blatant hoax about a non-existent MP / lecturer: zero Google hits for "Kenneth Bobley" and zero Google hits for "Ken Bobley". It would be astonishing, to say the least, if there was an MP who never had any mention recorded online at Hansard (whose online records start in 1988 and so would cover 7 years of his Parliamentary career) - see [1]. BencherliteTalk 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up the other giveaway is that there is no constituency of 'Camden' – Camden Borough is split between Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) and Hampstead and Highgate (UK Parliament constituency), neither of whom had this individual as an MP between 1985 and 1995 as claimed. BencherliteTalk 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Paradox

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

1 non-wiki ghit, which isn't about this group at all. No sources offered in article. Hoax? (Contested prod.) Fabrictramp 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin School District 25

Benjamin School District 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Family genealogy; non-notable, deleted. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and paste text to Talk:Beowulf. Sandstein 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf and danish mythology

Beowulf and danish mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bit of someone's term paper; incorporate useful bits into Beowulf and delete. Neutralitytalk 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and the other AFD which were closed as keeps. W.marsh 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Merge into Manchester Airport. Vegaswikian 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In every commercial airport article, and I do mean every, there's a list of airlines serving that airport and their destinations. Since when is that un-encyclopedic? Do you know something every editor of the thousands of commercial airport articles don't? --Oakshade 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be there either... DeleteBalloonman 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cannot contravene the peer review, as the peer review does not have any authority. It is a bunch of editors who feel like making suggestions. — Soleil (formerly I)
  • 'Learned editors from a peer review', that just leaves me speechless! Throw out AGF, throw out style guidelines, throw out all wikiprojects! I'm glad that we have found where all of the learned editors exist and they are the sole authorities on wikipedia style and don't need to consult with anyone. Talk about I like it pushed to the extreme. Vegaswikian 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Are you suggesting merging the content back to the Manchester Airport article, exactly opposite of what the peer review suggested? Or do you mean delete the content? --Oakshade 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - The other 2 terminal articles that were up for AfD, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2, have both been Kept.[2] [3] I suggest a closure of this AfD. --Oakshade 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was close, AFD is not for proposing merges. Coredesat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baton of honour

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

Merge/redirect to Scottish Police College. Neutralitytalk 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Recent edits have addressed the notability concerns. --Polaron | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic box opening technology

Automatic box opening technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This is due to the larger consensus for keep, and the unreasonable arguments made by the two delete supporters. Airport destinations aren't random trivia and this page will most probably be updated as the main page was before. Rudget 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am closing this article for deletion page as a keep. Due to the larger consensus for keep and the undefined, short delete !votes which most probably came from voters who had not seeked the proper information before voting, due to the swiftness of their edits since the previous. Rudget 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note - per this drv, this close have been overturned and the article has been sent back to AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason to move it to a sub-article which is given on the Manchester Airport talk page, there is no Wikipedia policy which states that long lists of irrelivant information related to airports must be on the articles pages, it seems to be the opinion of one project yet this article stretches over two projects. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are display or format issues, then that should be discussed and resolved before making significant changes which may be opposed. Vegaswikian 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget Contributions 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in the past, these types of pages have been routinely deleted. Making a change for peer review does not mean it is the correct one. Also don't forget that another project is working on a better solution then this. Your logic here seems to be based on a peer reviewer likes it justification. This issue should have been raised in the correct working projects before taking this action to make a point. Instead the decision was to ignore the existence of other projects. Vegaswikian 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with above. Merging all the destinations into one page would be better. Rudget Contributions 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of the article I also agree that this can be merged into one article, even though the Airports WikiProject have given some good ideas of using expandable tables, I do not feel it would work with the large airport such as Manchester's. Vegaswikian's point that someone wants it kept because WP:ILIKEIT is contrary to the fact that they want it deleted because they do not like it. The list of destinations is notable but not notable enough to be included on the Manchester Airport article and it dominated the article with information not directly relevant to the article. The editors of the Airports Project have not given a rationale why the destinations must be included on the article other that 'just because it does'. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge as the creator I think the articles for each terminal should probably be included in one list. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are comfortable with the creation of thousands of tiny new articles based on this precedent and you are totally opposed to the alternative of converting the list to a collapsed table which is likely to be the direction for all other similar articles. Vegaswikian 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see this as any sort of new precedent. There are many lists of a similar nature already. I do oppose attaching large lists directly to articles no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are prose.--BirgitteSB 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a precedent for the airport articles which all contain these lists and do not have them as separate article. And I'll ask again. So you are also opposed to a collapsed table in the article. The effect of that is basically the same look as the main article pointer with the difference that we don't create thousands of extra articles. This is important given that the table allows one common format for all airport articles. The proposal you are pushing says that some articles should have information broken out into another article while the remainder should retain the information in line. And the break out point is based on a very subjective definition of large. Vegaswikian 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how to express my opinion any more clearly: I oppose attaching large lists directly to articles of any sort, no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are written in prose not tabular form.--BirgitteSB 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So lists and tables should not be included in articles? If they can be included what determines large in the context of any article. You are saying keep because you don't like the article with this infomation included. I do hope that the closing admin considers that the keep votes here are really WP:ILIKEIT ones. Vegaswikian 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not at all. Rather it is your nomination that is "don't like it". My "Keep" opinion is based on this list being well-defined and finite; acceptable by policy and in line with the current practice of splitting off large detailed bits from articles. While I do not like the particular suggestion you asked me about afterwards, it has nothing to do my initial “Keep” opinion. I could just have easily disliked your suggestion and said “Delete” the material entirely from Wikipedia as others have said.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus/keep. On raw numbers, the keepers have an edge, but not a great one.

As to the policy issues, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE was repeatedly cited as a reason to delete, with varying sections referred to. That policy is clear that consensus only exists about the ten numerically listed points. It's not clear from this discussion that it fails any of those points. My own opinion is that a plausible argument could be made it fails 7: plot summaries, but there was almost no discussion here of that point, so I won't delete on those grounds. The argument based on the directory section of the same policy is not persuasive. There were also several guideline-based arguments, mostly regarding WP:TRIVIA. TRIVIA doesn't apply because it is about trivia sections in articles, and (as indicated at the end of the intro) not whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. What's more, the guideline was meant to address unorganized lists of facts (trivia sections), which this list is not, since it has clear criteria for inclusion. Besides those issues, the debate is mostly about whether deaths are important enough to the Sopranos to justify having this list. That is a question of opinion that policy doesn't, or hasn't yet, clearly addressed, so the numbers carry the day.

I'll leave the derivative work issue to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--Chaser - T 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in The Sopranos series

List of deaths in The Sopranos series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I am aware that death scenes are notable within the fan community of The Sopranos and that they are noticeably grim and realistic. I fail to see how this list contains useful information. At this point, nearly every character who has had more than two lines on the show has been profiled on Wikipedia. So if reader seriously needed to know when and where a character died, than they could search the corresponding article. It also contains information on non-notable deaths and trivial statistics that are unsourced (and would be difficult to cite). These inclusions of trivial characters should be removed per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not a valid reason for a delete --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it is. An article that poses no useful information (or "no point") should not be kept on Wikipedia. The Filmaker 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. You can't just say "pointless" and think that will cut the mustard. Maybe you should read up on what to NOT say when voting on a deletion. It's a discussion. Discussions aren't based on 1 word. ELABORATE, and EXPLAIN why you THINK it's pointless. In that case, I can just vote on every single AfD with "pointless". C'mon now... --sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, maybe the act of simply stating "pointless" was not the correct route for the voter to take to state his opinion. However the point (no pun intended) of the article being pointless (i.e. lacking useful information"). The Filmaker 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information about who died and how is available in the various character and episode articles. An exhaustive list of deaths is something more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Merge I agree with sumnjim; this list makes it easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died, thus making it easier to find such information since it's all on one page. Also, what if a reader does not know the name of the dead character for whom they are searching? They could find their answer much quickly here with the images provided. Cliff smith 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well first, sumnjim never actually stated his opinion on the deletion, just his opinion how the use of the single word "pointless". So there's nothing to agree with him with. If the reader does not know the name of the character, than it is most likely that the character is non-notable. Thus the information is trivial and should not be included per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Finally, it appears that images will soon be removed per the free-image policy be enacted on the article. The Filmaker 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say about agreeing with sumnjim. As far as the pictures go, perhaps they should be moved to their respective characters if they will be removed from this list. Cliff smith 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is notable or true does not warrant an article. The deaths on the show are notable, however the article offers no commentary or reception information for the deaths. Just non-notable statistics and facts that are present in other articles. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps the article should be expanded instead of flatout deleted. Articles should only be deleted if there is no room for improvement.--CyberGhostface 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" thereby stating that the article is no more than a list. If it were to feature any commentary or reception than it would have expanded beyond it's purpose. It should than be titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" at which point it would be realized that a list of every single death is not needed and it would only discuss the notable deaths (such as Big ). The Filmaker 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "pointless" comment was made by another user. Not by me. Please read my other comments before you vote. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you said it :) --sumnjim talk with me·changes 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you replied only to that comment and none of my own, implied that that was what you believed. I meant no offense. The Filmaker 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are starting to stretch the extent of convenience and navigation. Should also place a List of characters that have appeared to Tony Soprano's dreams? The dreams are a notable element to the series. These are convenient but are they needed when the reader has an easy enough time finding the information in the first place? The Filmaker 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What discussion? It's pretty much me stating why I feel the article should be deleted and one man with one comment refuting one statement. Which I have responded to. What discussion? The Filmaker 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the series is popular is not in question, nor is the notability of the deaths in the series. But, how is this list useful? The reason why the deaths are notable is not discussed within the article (and technically should not be as this is merely supposed to be a "list" of deaths) there is not useful information. As for navigation, it is unneeded as well, the deaths can be found in corresponding episode and character articles. The Filmaker 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I come to see this page frequently, this MUST BE KEPT! The Sopranos is a very important television show and the deaths are a very key point of the series, this page cannot be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.60.4 (talk • contribs)

This comment does not seem to refute anything I've stated above. The Filmaker 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have had so much interesting reading on Wikipedia about this series and this list is one of my favorites. I can't see a reason why it should be deleted. cun 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably because you have not bothered to read any of the my comments above. The Filmaker 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, or he just doesn't agree with them.--CyberGhostface 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CyberGhostface is right. Keep this lovable and highly interesting list! cun 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Highly interesting" is not a criteria for articles to be kept. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Why not keep articles and lists that people actually do find interesting and useful? cun 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone been reading any of the comments I have posted in reply to any of these oppositions? First, just because an article is somewhat interesting or true does not warrant it to be kept, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, how is the article useful, at most it can be used as a navigation tool. But it is easy enough for readers to find information on the deaths of key characters through corresponding character and episode articles. If you are speaking of trivial characters such as Man #1 than they should not be included for being non-notable and trivial, per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The Filmaker 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information. This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts. The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it. The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story (although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show). cun 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information.
But is not indiscriminate.
This list is not indiscriminate. That's an axiom. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list contains information every single death in The Sopranos series. Including every character such Man #1, little boy on bike, and even animals. How is that not indiscriminate? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree to a certain point that information like that is criticizable, but they do not destroy the overall impression. Animals are dealt with on a separate part of the list and therefore not interfering with the main list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we're talking about the article as a whole, animals an element of the list. So you understand that this information is easy to criticize, yet it does not deserve to be deleted.
Rephrase, easy to criticize, meaning there is a problem with the article. The problem needs to be fixed either now or later. The problem cannot be fixed now and it cannot be fixed later. Thus either some reorganizing is in order or we need to get rid of the problem.
This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts.
Interest is not criteria for an article to be kept, it does not contribute a huge source for navigation, trivia is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I never mentioned spam.
Common interest is of course a criteria for an article to be kept. We don't want to read articles about the ordinary Joe, but those phenomenons of art, culture, history, science etc that affect a lot of people. It does contribute a huge source of navigation and greater understanding of the power relationships in the show. Trivia should be allowed on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. As far as I'm concerned, first and foremost spam is the kind of thing we should concentrate on ridding Wikipedia of, not relevant lists like this.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is true or interesting does not mean it is relevant enough for Wikipedia. You believe trivia should be included, which as you said, is a different discussion. So I can't change your opinion on this.
          • I don't understand your animosity towards this list. I think the list is relevant enough for Wikipedia. Seems we are just in a fundamental disagreement.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you believe trivia should be allowed. I along with many others do not. But according to Wikipedia policy, this information should not remain.
It's more WP:TRIVIA.
The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it.
The information is available elsewhere in better and more accessible articles.
No, it's not. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes it is. All of the relevant information within the article is available in corresponding character articles and episode articles, not to mention the main Sopranos article.
Are you saying that the deaths are the overall story? Now we're just getting into philiosophy here. The overall story is not marked by the deaths. Yes, the deaths are a milestone, but they are not the only milestones. The information is available elsewhere.
  • The deaths are crucial in defining the overal story arc. Filtered information about something important as this is a great way to understand The Sopranos better.
Where is this defining information coming from? I see a list of characters who died, who killed them, in which episode, and how (nothing about relationships, the actual physical action of how they died). Unless this supposed act of defining the overall story is defined in the prose itself, then the act is not properly, if at all, being defined.
The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story
The fact that the deaths are important to the story has nothing to do with the deletion of this list. The list does not contain any commentary or reception on the "realism" of the deaths in The Sopranos. And if they were added, the article would no longer be a "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" in would now need to be renamed "Deaths in The Sopranos series" which would not require a list and would remove all of the non-notable characters and would discuss only the most notable deaths, such as Big . However, now we're getting into a totally different article. If someone wants to start this new article. Fine. But since it is a complete turn around from this article. This article should be deleted.
The list should shortly explain why the deaths occured in the commentary fields as a means of greater understanding of the power relations, as mentioned above.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information can be found in the character and episode articles as well.
Yes it is, the manner of death is specifically stated any character or episode articles you can find. Perhaps even more in depth then this current death list.
Who is we? The other voters? The majority of which have simply stated that The Sopranos is important and the deaths are important? I don't believe you can honestly speak for everyone here.
"We" as in you and me. We differ from each other in opinion cun 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to paint a picture of the vast realism of the Sopranos compared to other television. We're here to state fact. Realism is not mentioned in the article, if it's going to be mentioned it should be in the manner stated above. The Filmaker 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is encyclopedic in nature as it states fact within a fictitious world in a correct and concrete manner.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? I agree, how is that refuting my statement? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "animosity" is that it is filled with information that is available elsewhere, information that is trivial, and serves only as an unneeded navigation point and offers and could not offer any meaningful information without having to rename and totally revitalize the article (at which point a completely different article should be started). The Filmaker 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is unneeded, though. You have some good points, but I think Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where "house-trainism" is the norm. Be bold and make unusual and original lists, although they never would have surfaced in other encyclopedias.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you feel that it is unneeded, then how is it needed. At what point is there a need for this list. Not as a minor convenience. I'm saying, if this went away tomorrow would no one be able to find the relevant information that's stored on it. For that matter, is a reader actually looking for this article? Are they hoping when they are browsing the main Sopranos page that they can find a list of people who died? No, they are going to look for the character and the episode article. This list is only a minor convenience on those happen to find it when the majority of readers will be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sumnjim and CyberGhostface. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is repeatedly cited by the Filmaker but I don't believe any of the examples apply to this article. MrBlondNYC 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not explicitly stated in the article example #1 is a good representation. Still, these are just examples and not specific criteria. The lines that more deal with the issue are "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to be very specific to me. I don't think #1 (FAQ's) remotely applies and I disagree that the article represents Wikipedia as "an indiscriminate collection of items". May I make a suggestion? Could you please stop with the "No one has bothered to read any of my comments" and the "Has anyone been reading any of my comments?" It's a bit condescending to say people are not reading or comprehending your arguments. People are reading them and...disagreeing with them. Capice?
        • No, actually I won't. Since the majority of people either do not bother to recognize the reasons for deletion or they simply type the relatively same sentence as everyone else "The Sopranos is famous and the deaths are important". Since no one until cun above as bothered to refute my statements, I highly doubt that anyone has bothered to read them. The Filmaker 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that the Sopranos has reached such a level of fame then details concerning it become useful to people. People may often want to look up details of a series like this. This happens when a TV show goes from being popular to being regarded as creative and worthy of high esteem. Heliumballoon 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, you believe that this page would be useful for fans............ how? I understand that some fans might like to look it up. But at what point does this page become useful? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For people interested in finding out details of the deaths in the series. And given how popular it is - very useful for them. To question usefulness here is very silly. Why is an article on mice useful? Only if you are interested in finding out mice. Why is an article about Bob the Builder useful? Because people want to know about it. If people deem something worthy of knowing about and reading about, then it is by definition useful. Heliumballoon 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, no, that is not the definition of useful. The definition is "capable of being put to use" at what point can I put the information that Man #1 was killed in episode 13 by Christopher Molasanti, to use? No, this information is trivial. An article on mice can at least feature information on how mice behave and allow the reader to further understand how mice are born, live and die. This only features a list of deaths (information which appears in other, more suitable, places). Yes, there is line between interesting and useful. Purely interesting information is allowed on Wikipedia. However, purely interesting articles are not. Especially when the information is present useful articles. The Filmaker 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very interesting and informing article about one of the most popular television shows in recent history. Salvag 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why mark for deletion now? This article has been up for at least a few years (that I can recall) and contains important information on the program. I find the timing of call for deletion . . . interesting. With all of the hype over the show in recent weeks, someone has decided they don't particularly like a certain wikipedia article they found looking for information on the show? All of the 'pros' listed above are valid points whereas the 'cons' seem to be nit-picky and overly concerned about narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. Not trying to rake on anyone with my opinion, it's just how I see it. Danno49 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, first, you haven't bothered to refute any of the deletion rationales other than that they are "nit-picky". Also, timing has nothing to do with it. I found the article and disagreed with it being on Wikipedia. The amount of time an article has been active as nothing to with deletion policy. The Filmaker 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much, is that it includes unusual lists like this. It would be a great shame if such original lists would be banished. cun 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • These unusual lists might be fun, but Wikipedia is not simply supposed to be a fun source of information (that isn't to say that it's not supposed to be fun). This is why many editors have voted into policy the sections that this article violates. The Filmaker 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Has someone told you that Wikipedia is a nightmare to have a discussion in? ^^ I think the seriousness will damage Wikipedia and make it a greyer place, but that's another discussion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not saying that the project must be stone-cold serious. But it is referred to as a project, as in something that we want to be a quality source of relevant information. This article does not represent that. The Filmaker 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Tone 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ideally this would be part of The Sopranos main article but since including it there would make it very long, it is therefore reasonable to have a separate article. A1octopus 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in answer to your nom, deletion under WP:UNENC, is not an appropriate argument for this list because this is not an indiscrimate collection of information - the inclusion criteria for the list is very specific (characters who died in a particular television programme). I would argue also that a nomination under WP:TRIVIA is also not appropriate since The Sopranos is an important highly notable TV series (even here in the UK the airing of it's final episode got a mention on national news) and, since it is about gansters, a list of deaths of characters in episodes is in order. As I said it would ideally be in the show's main article, but as that would make the main article very long it is reasonable to have a separate one (in the same sense the discographies for major bands are usually separate articles). A1octopus 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above the article contains information on the deaths of Silvio Dante and Big Pussy, but also on Man #1 and Boy on Bike, even animals. This is the trivial indiscriminate information that I speak of. The Filmaker 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you appear to be arguing for a cleanup rather than a delete, but that is something for the article's discussion page, not a deletion debate. A1octopus 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing just WP:NOT, I'm also arguing that the notable information is available in other articles, in more depth at that. This article serves only as a minor navigation tool. However, what reader is actually looking for this page? When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death, do they look up Wikipedia hoping for a death list? No, they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, Filmaker, but the above argument sounds awfully similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A1octopus 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Hello? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for users who arguing an article should be deleted simply because they aren't interested or enjoy the content. In other words, it would be like me arguing that I don't like/care about The Sopranos or the deaths in The Sopranos. Neither of which is true. I've provided a policy page and given my critique of how I believe that the user would react (not in the sense of whether they care or not, but in the sense of where they would look for this information first). The Filmaker 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the nom about this as an application of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that this was an important and popular show and that a lot of people died in said show, but that doesn't mean that this list is Encyclopedia-worthy. As mentioned above, the potential exists for merging this information with all of the articles about every character who says more than five words in the series. I don't think that adding a list of deaths in any other mob movie, or important movie where people die would be any more relavent, and that's what I'm using to judge this. bwowen T/C 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What part of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE do you feel that this fails? Let's go over all 10 items. 1. FAQ - It's not a FAQ. 2. Travel Guide - Obviously not a travel guide. 3. Memorial - Not a memorial 4. Instruction Manual - Not an instruction manual 5. Internet Guide - Not an internet guide. 6. Textbook and annotated texts - Not any of these either 7. Plot Summary - Not a plot summary 8. Lyrics Database - Nope 9. Statistics - Nope 10. News reports - Nope. So yes, please, elighten all of use where you believe it fails WP:NOT --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find this disclaimer at the top of that list "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...." Thus these are only examples that have been, through consensus, decided that are specifically not what Wikipedia repersents. These two sentences represent what the article violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The Filmaker 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it says "..does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Where does it say "...automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" ? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it doesn't. To say ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is just ridiculous. What was your point here? The Filmaker 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a rehashing of List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series. Others have pointed out the other policies and guidelines that this article fails, and here is an example of previous articles that were already deleted. I've seen some "it's useful to navigate". That's why you create a List of The Sopranos characters, and then conform to the out-of-universe guideline when writing that. Also, you have to look at what a death list entails. It's plot points, major ones and nothing else. This means you have created a list that is a derivative work of the original copyrighted source, thus it's a violation of copyrights for that show. There is no encyclopedic information to justify its existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While I have very little knowledge of this TV show, I can definitely say that a list of deaths can fall under trivia. Alientraveller 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this does not qualify as encyclopedic content. There is no real-world context to be determined from this kind of list. I would support a Death in The Sopranos prose article if there was media coverage about the level of violence in the series, and perhaps its controversy (if any was to be had), with specific cited examples from the series. This is not the case here, and there is no connection between the bits of information other than an occurrence that is obviously commonplace in such a series. Keeping this is bad precedent to create a list of jokes in comedy series or a list of characters who got betrayed in a soap opera. Like I said before, death in The Sopranos would be much more suitable in prose, especially if it has ties to real-world context. This list is pure trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. What encyclopedic foundation does this have? As a directory to find out who was killed and when? As some nice fan information? As being useful to a reader? Right now, the list is a derivative work of the source material, thus a major copyright violation. Don't care how "useful" something is, when it violates copyrights, and cannot justify fair use, then it must go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge OR Delete per above. — Deckiller 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft and material that lacks encyclopedic value. If information is already not mentioned on various other character/episode articles, then merge info that is noteworthy. María (habla conmigo) 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm in love with this page, and any pages that provide comprehensive cross listing for works of art. Yes, the info here in available on other pages - 86 other pages of episode recaps. But here, we have a body count. It's the same for music used in the episode, or cast lists, or any other cross lists. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.93 (talk • contribs)
Last time I checked, "I'm in love with this page" didn't constitute a valid argument to keep an article. BTW, music used in an episode isn't encyclopedic either. What is also not a valid argument is "there are other articles like this as well". Please, point them out...we'll make our way over there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, it lists every single death, no matter how minor...that's indiscriminate. It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, every article is subjective. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. The Filmaker 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets deleted it is only fair all of these get deleted: [4] I don't agree with it but it would be fair. MrBlondNYC 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, every article is subjective. I have not read these articles so I do not know for sure that they should most definitely be deleted. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deaths that in occur in the Sopranos are notable and as has been mentioned before there are many other TV show and movie death lists on Wikipedia Bamaman 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above: Yes, they are notable and are mentioned in corresponding character and episode articles. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see that other "death lists" is not a valid argument. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Erik has pointed out, "Death" in The Sopranos maybe notable, but a "list of deaths" is not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then will the other "death lists" be deleted?Bamaman 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link above to another AfD that has like 4 other similar lists up for deletion, and I listed a link to one that was deleted alread. I think others have listed links to lists that were deleted that carried the same information for other shows/films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up before (incidentally by me). If you or someone else would like to write an article titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" than that would be more than welcome. It would have contain commentary and reception, but only to the notable deaths. However, this new article is a complete 180 from this article. Thus, if you want to create a "Deaths in The Sopranos series", create new article. And get rid of this non-notable, poorly formatted list that would not be acceptable in said new article. The Filmaker 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The JPStalk to me 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I entirely disagree with The Filmaker's assertion that "When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death...they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles." I have consulted this list numerous times, and I find it very useful, in the sense that any information about a fictional world can be "useful." If, for example, I want to determine the order of deaths on the show, I can consult this list, rather than wading through numerous episode-specific articles. Furthermore, The Filmaker has repeatedly said that he objects to the inclusion of "minor" deaths. I would argue, first, that no death is "minor," not even on TV. And, second, who decides which deaths are major and which are minor? The inclusion of statistics by season is useful in understanding the overall arc and direction of the show. For example, Season 4, considered the best by many fans, had the fewest deaths. This is useful information, no more or less useful than any other information about The Sopranos. I don't understand the distinction being made between "interesting" and "useful" in this case. How is a recap of the episodes "useful" but a list of the deaths only "interesting"? You could make the argument that the individual character articles are also unnecessary, since all of the relevant information is included in the episode articles. Why have an article about Christopher Moltisanti when all of the character's development, personality, characteristics, and history occur in episodes of the show? Anyone interested in this character's history needs only to read the articles about the episodes in which he appeared. An article about the specific character is nothing more than an extraneous "navigational tool," or, at best, a digest of information that is all included in other articles. Seriously. I don't understand the hard-on you have for deleting this article. Is there a shortage of space on the internet? Is Wikipedia about to reach its limit? Obviously, some people find this article useful (myself included). Why do you want to take that away from us? Mookabear 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is completely awesome. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for keeping an article. WP:ILIKEIT. The Filmaker 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that same token all the "Delete as fancruft" argumments are invalid per WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "it should be remembered that Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion" MrBlondNYC 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay as well. Essays do hold some weight in the deletion process, however they are not policy. The Filmaker 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If deaths are significant events on The Sopranos, then this data should be merged into The Sopranos timeline (unfortunately the timeline is currently very wordy (proseliney?), so it would be obscured). If The Sopranos is ultimately a show about killing people in the same way that House is a show about diagnosing illnesses, then the data should be merged into two locations:
  1. The episode list, as it is for House.
  2. The episode infoboxes, as it can be for House.
Alternately, the data could be combined with a chronology of all characters, showing their first appearance and departure for any means on a timeline (cf Template:Doctorwhocompanions). Vagary 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deaths of the characters are not nearly as relevant to the show as diagnoses are to House. The Filmaker 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? You? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says not? You? The entire premise of House is built around diagnosing people. The premise of The Sopranos is built around the happenings of Tony Soprano which happens to contain deaths occasionally. The deaths are only notable because they are often of main characters that have been on the show for years and for their realism. Still, it's hard to say or give a reasonable explanation as to why the deaths in The Sopranos are a relevant as diagnoses in House. The Filmaker 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. They are still somewhat relevant. Is there objection to the deaths being merged into one of the resources I mentioned in a prominent way? Vagary 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is exactly the type of article we should be encouraging users to create. It's well sourced (to the primary source -- the episode -- which is a perfectly allowed source), it's presented neatly (tabulated) and deaths are a notable part of The Sopranos -- a highly notable television, thus it stands that this type of information would be of interest to our readers. A merge would be inappropriate (per WP:SS), and the list meets the criteria set in WP:LIST#Purpose of lists). Matthew 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment completely ignores all of the original a subsequent reasons for deletion. The Filmaker 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons for deletion? I can't see any other than "I don't like it". Matthew 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of out of universe content. No "new" content to establish that his isn't simply some derivative work of the copyrighted source material. It's a list of plot points. To name 3. Bignole 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing a valid reason to delete, other than "I don't like it, so here's some silly reason I invented." Matthew 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you're a silly person (being jovial). Last time I checked WP:WAF wasn't that silly. Nor was WP:NOT, and I believe derivative works aren't considered too silly in a court of law (which, btw, Wikipedia is not above). So, what's silly is the fact that you call any opposing argument silly. Silly Rabbit, that retort is for kids. Bignole 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a non-silly reason (supported by policy) and I'll reconsider my keep. I don't think you can provide such a thing. Oh, you should probably read derivative work ← lolipops. Matthew 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT isn't policy? The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about WP:NOT#PAPER (which supports keeping the article)? I can't for the life of me think of anything there it would fail. Matthew 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The Filmaker 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which don't, of course, support you. Matthew 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think US laws supercede policy. Why does this constitute a copyright infringement, I guess you missed all that stuff at the top. What is this article? It's a list of plot events, those plot events are under the sole rights of HBO (or whoever owns the series). If they wish, they could make Wikipedia remove this list, because there is nothing on this page that says it is being used in an encyclopedic manner. There is no real world content that justifies the use of this copyrighted material. Read this, you can't even use a copyrighted character in a story that has nothing to do with the original material. What you are doing here is making a page that is nothing but a cumulative work of major and minor plot events. What the courts look at are: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and, 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work Guest what, the "potential market" for the show decreases because you are supplying potential customers with a list of every death in the series, for free mind you, and are not providing any critical commentary on that (Wiki even has its own criteria for that). If I were to read this page, it would ruin most of the show for me, because it reveals all the major plot events. I know they are major because any time someone says the deaths are not relevant, people start speaking out that they are. Also, part of what falls under the law: "Your work may be using an element from another work that is not copyrightable, like a story line.." Now, this area isn't as concrete a definition, but this is why Wikipedia created it's own fair use criteria, so pages would not fall on the line. Let's look at the article. What's on this page? Storylines. The story line of Emil Kolar's death at the hands of Christopher Moltisanti, or the 10 other story lines in that first season. This page doesn't even take the time to name the actors. It's entirely in-universe. If you want some in-universe, list of deaths, with no regard for third party sources, go to Sopranos Wikia (if there is one, create it if there isn't). Right now, the page is a walking timebomb of copyrighted material. I got who gets killed, who kills who, how they died, what episode it happened in. Could you call this anything other than a derivative work of the show? It doesn't have to be a word for word translation to be a derivative work, and if you do not have permission to create a derivative work then you are infringing on the copyrights of that studio. Bignole 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well (clearly) you don't understand copyright. A definition for you "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."
Now, feel free to give me a non-"I don't like this article so here's some BS I made up." argument, actually supported by policy. As it stands the closing admin would be well correct to close this as keep, as quite frankly the deletes haven't given any rationale to delete with any substance. Matthew 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If killing people is the key element in the series, maybe you can incorporate it into the episode list. Something similar is done at Lost episodes, where it is stated whose are the flashbaks. Just an option, I don't follow the series. --Tone 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been suggested before. However, the deaths are not as relevant as the flashbacks are to Lost. The deaths are important in the long run of things on the Sopranos, however the flashbacks are a "key element" to the series of Lost. The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Keep votes above I'd like any administrator who comes by attempting to understand the discussion that is taking place, to keep in mind that these Afds are not a majority vote (although the Delete votes are not far behind), you may notice that the majority Keep votes are simply users stating that they either just plain like the article (WP:ILIKEIT), or simply state that "The Sopranos TV series is notable and the deaths in the series are important to the plot). Both of these statements, and any other Keep votes for that matter, have been refuted by myself and Bignole numerous times. Few of them have bothered to try to refute those statements (or even reply at all for that matter). At this point, I'd like to ask the administrator that is reading this Afd to carefully look at each comment and disregard any of the comments that are either unfounded or have been refuted. Most, if not all, of the above, have been. The Filmaker 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you are making the case that the deaths in the Sopranos are not an integral part of the series, such as flash backs in Lost or a diagnosis in House, many of the keep comments have refuted your points very well.Bamaman 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we have refuted the points made by them. In the end, either I or Bignole have refuted most, if not all, of the comments made by the keep votes. For one thing, every single episode of House or Lost respectively features a diagnosis and a flashback. The entire format behind Lost is based around the flashbacks. House's entire premise is centered around the Department of Diagnostic Medcine. The Sopranos however is not a show about death or killing people. Yes, it is an element of the show, and it does occur often, but the does every week begin with an episode where Tony is wondering "Well, who am I gonna kill this week?". The Filmaker 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the comment The article was nominated for deletion per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, however, that reason is invalid because it lists EVERY death in the series. If some deaths were included, and some left out, that would make the list indiscriminate, however, since ALL deaths are accounted for, then this list is discriminate, and therefore, the nomination is invalid. If you also take into account a point brought up post-nomination, that wikipedia is not a directory, this too, is invalid, as this list is, in no way, trying to act as a directory. A directory, for lack of a better word, is like a telephone book. You look up something you need, and it tells you where to get the information. (ie: go to THIS location to find what you are looking for). This list has what you are looking for inside the same article, it is not telling you to go anywhere else to find the information. Of course, there are links to the episode where they died, but the list does not say "here is the episode, to find out who died, click here to find out". Because of this reasoning, that, too, is an invalid reason to delete. EVERY single list on Wikipedia, is going to have a blue link to somewhere else. That does not mean it is acting like a directory. True, there are people using WP:ILIKEIT, but there are also people using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. The fact of the matter is simply, that this list does not fail WP:NOT, and no other policy that I can find. To delete this list would be absurd. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. You've got it flipped. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, thus does not allow ALL information. The list, as you yourself stated, lists EVERY single death on the series (including animals and deaths are not even chronicled in the series). If we were to only keep the notable deaths, than the list would be "discriminate". As for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
And all of the refutes have been refuted? The Filmaker 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose a middle ground. How about we rename the article to "List of notable deaths in The Sopranos" and clean up all the non-notable deaths (FYI Pie-O-Mie's death, though an animal is very notable). With regards to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, you fail to see my point. A directory is something that directs you to a different source for information. The premise of this list is not to direct you elsewhere, as the information is already contained in the list. As I said before, of course it is going to link you to the actual episode list, however every list in Wikipedia is going to have blue links to other sources. A list without blue links would just look funny. If we can agree on this, I think we can move ahead and make everyone happy --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise would make, how should I put it, happier' than I am right now. It would make the article a little more decent. However, we can't ignore Bignole's prime rationale for deletion. The list is only a replacement for major events in the plot. Thus can still fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE this time under the Plot summary example: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the article were to offer commentary and reception (as I stated above) than it would not be focused solely as a summary of the work's plot. However, than the article would no longer be a list. It would have to be renamed "Notable deaths in The Sopranos series", at which point people would realize that the list is unneeded and we need only discuss notable deaths such Big Pussy or Phil Leotardo. At this point, the new article is completely from the current article. Therefore, if a user wishes too, the new article should simply be created. The Filmaker 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is not a replacement of major events, it's a guide to the major events. It gives just the right amount of information, though the wording needs a copyedit. It is not a copyvio--they are he barest summary. Most lists are intended to be complete--keeping track of the deaths is not very useful if it doesn't keep track of all the deaths. The example used by NOT for indiscriminate would seem to condemn not this, but the articles on the episodes, which are generally 80%-90% plot summary. DGG 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be all in-depth to infringe on the rights. If I have a story that uses the character of Tony Soprano, that's an infringement on the rights of HBO. Having a list that does nothing but state plot elements infringes on the rights, because there is nothing else, outside the fictional element of the show, on this page. This is a list of fictional characters, their deaths, by who's hands, and in what episode. Not only are there no real world content, but it treats every like it really happened. Bignole 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh be quiet! As I've explained to you above "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." -- learn to grasp this, immediatley. Matthew 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First Matthew, you are becoming quite rude with people, you should probably curb that, and I don't need your lack of understanding of US laws to tell me otherwise. If you think that you can copy concepts and facts without proof that it is your original work, you have a lot to learn. If I created some 7ft hair creature, that carried a weapon, only talked in animal grunts and basically looked like Chewbacca in every way that I didn't already mention, you had better believe I'd find a lawsuit in my mailbox. Because Chewbacca is a concept; he's a character on a copyrighted piece of work, just like all those in that list on this page. If someone can get sued, and lose the lawsuit, over putting Seinfeld quotes in a book, you can believe that more important things to a series like plot elements. Try this, go write a book that does nothing but list every major and minor storyline in a plot and see if you don't have a lawsuit. It's infringement because those are not just "concepts" they are the actual storylines from the series. You cannot publish a set of storylines, with not encyclopedic commentary, without permission from the owner. I feel I should explain this better, when it says "not intended for an actual idea, concepts, facts, etc", it is referring to fact that you can not copyright the "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and you cannot copyright the "fact" that there is gravity acting on the Earth. Meaning, someone cannot "copyright" a filming style, the way they place a camera in a shot, etc. You cannot copyright the fact that Tony Soprano is a person. But the stories are copyrighted, as are the characters in them. If it was as simple as "John killed Bob in "Pilot", that's not copyrighted. But this list lays out the details, which are apart of that show, and since it's laid out in a manner that lists every occurance of a death, that is what makes it an infringement on the copyrights. If you were writing a paragraph about a Sopranos episode, and you need to describe the scene to illustrate your point, then that is not a violation. That isn't what this list is doing. This list is nothing but a huge compilation of episode events, in detail. Like "Shot in the head. Killed during Christopher's drunk fury for not listening to his problems.". You're doing nothing but revealing events in a plot. Bignole 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the page violates copyright, please nominate it for a violation check on WP:CV. A deletion debate is not the proper place to debate this. Vagary 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't aware that we had that. It's already backlogged, so I'll wait till after the AfD is closed. There is no point in bringing it there if the AfD closes in favor of deletion. If not, I'll go there and see if others agree on its infringement status. Bignole 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this Afd was not originally started over the fact that the List violates copyright. However, true it may be. The Filmaker 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

  • I've enjoyed this show since day one, so my initial impression of this article is that it's a fascinating fan resource and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, my consigliere has pointed out to me that this is Wikipedia, not a Sopranos wiki. The question that has to be asked is: "Is this specific topic of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic?" Now before you fly off the handle, I am not saying that The Sopranos is an unnotable topic, or even that deaths on the Sopranos is an unnotable topic. The only relevant question before us is: "Does a topical concordance of deaths throughout the series meet standards for inclusion on Wikipedia?" This article's usefulness is irrelevant, its novelty is irrelevant, its enjoyability is irrelevant, and its cherished place in the hearts of fanboys and fangirls is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a harsh mistress which demands that we set aside our emotional attachments for the sake of being as objective, detached and fair-minded as possible. Sorry folks, but listcruft is bad for our thing. Perhaps this list can find a good home on a fan-wiki, but as far as its appropriateness for Wikipedia, I have to say: Whack. Groupthink 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, I love this comment. You may be right. I have at least copied the content, so it won't dissappear with a deletion of this article. cun 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a television show. It is not real life. Therefore the amount of miscellaneous information about it that is encyclopedia is very limited. Herostratus 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a television show is not a valid reason to delete. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Because it's a television show, only a limited amount of miscellaneous information about it will be encyclopedic is SO a valid reason to delete. Groupthink 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed it is. I presume this AfD will be cited in future cases so it is important to make a precise decision on the case. One more thing. All the info from the list should be covered in the episode articles and that is enough. Too many redundant lists on WP, we should have stronger policy. --Tone 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge into an Episode list. Episode lists are an estblished precedent. Permitting one death list means there will soon be death lists for every action-oriented film or television series. And actor. Bleh. Trust me: Do you really want to know the names of every two-bit extra mutilated by Bolo Yeung?--Mike18xx 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Cleary stated why above 69.218.8.5 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can clearly state why, your comment is invalid. I can just as easily say "Clearly stated why not above." The Filmaker 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You did'nt say anything when a user in favor of deleting said "per above"69.218.8.5 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I assumed that they agreed with the many objections to the article. However, I have no clue what objection you have, as the majority, if not all, of the keep votes points have been refuted. Or did you not bother to read any of the replies to the votes? The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Refuted" is a very strong word. This debate could probably serve to be summarized - I'll put out a call for someone neutral to do it. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They most certainly have not been refuted in my view. I have found the delete areguments to have been rebuffed in this disscusion69.218.8.5 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly provide an example? Even if you could, I doubt that is the only arguement that was made for deletion. The Filmaker 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Yes, it is a telvision show, but why is that such a problem? This is an ensyclopediea and they have to be informative. TV shows are at best, art forms and deserve recordniton and the death of a TV character is genuiningly (sp?) concidered important enough to be mentioned as though it was real (But state it isn't) as the character is dead and not seen again (Apart from the odd show where they are). So this and all other death lists should stay, as this is very informative and also people may wish to know how characters died rather than a pasific characer. MJN SEIFER 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a television show or that it is a death on television has nothing to do with any of the objections to the article remaining. In other words, it is not "a problem". The problem is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information which in turn violates copyright and also violates the directory policy. The information is present elsewhere in more accessible places (and where a reader would most likely look) and the only real use for the article is as a minor convenience as a navigation tool. The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you agreed above, copyright violation is not relevant to this debate. It is a red herring: please stop bringing it up. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being associated with something doesn't entitle you to notability. Bignole 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and while I have my doubts as to whether or not that page is too trivial to be included on Wikipedia. I will mention that the Crossover article is slightly more useful as the crossovers are not always (and should not always be) explicitly stated as in the context of character and episodes often times they are very trivial. However, in the larger scheme of things, they can prove to be notable. The notable deaths on The Sopranos will always be explicitly stated in the episode and character articles. The Filmaker 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedica1. Groupthink 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true as well. The Filmaker 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I already read this article 2 weeks ago. Any article that generates this much discussion on both sides of the fence probably should be kept, since there is obviously enough interest for the article to be here. Wikipedia's for the readers, after all, not for the editors or the rules lawyers. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Wikipedia has something approaching 60GB of Simpsons cruft, which kinda outweighs any rational argument anyone could ever put towards anything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a supporting argument for deleting 60GB of Simpsons cruft? ;) Groupthink 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm resigned to the continued existence of 60GB of Simpsonscruft. Wikipedia is, after all, created and run by primates, many of whom watch the Simpsons. However, a large number of primates also watch the Sopranos, which was popular too; the show is now over, so there should be no more Sopranoscruft created. As for this article, I personally read it 2 weeks ago, and as I think the true test of keeping cruft (e.g. Simpsons) is whether a large number of Wikipedia readers may find it useful, I therefore think this article should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the same can be said for 60GB of Simpsonscruft. I'd like to see someone try to AfD an article like Disco Stu or Duff Beer (The Simpsons) on the grounds that they are non-notable and lack secondary sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both of those should be merged. Disco Stu should be in a "List of The Simpsons characters" page, as he's kind of minor. Duff Beer should be merged with the main article, as it contains some relevant information, especially the bit about people actually creating it in the '90s. Bignole 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Go ahead and try! You have my blessing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw up the proposed mergers. You'll have my vote. Bignole 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you first. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a place for a debate. You brought it up. What you are doing is equivalent to dumping information into Wikipedia and expecting others to source it for you. You think they should be merged, propose it. You think they should be AfD'd, then propose it. Stop doing the "well this exists" game. I'm not your parent, you can propose articles for deletion or merger on your own. Frankly. I think both of those articles have a better chance of actually expanding into sensible encyclopedic articles. They probably need to be merged until that actually can happen, but they have a better potential for it than this page, which has about a snow ball's chance in hell of being encyclopedic. Proposals have been made about how info from here could be use to make an encyclopedic entry. I frankly think that a "Death in The Sopronos" article is best served as a section on the main article's page. Bignole 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to keep a cool head. I personally have a "live and let live" philosophy regarding most articles. I have also never dumped information into Wikipedia expecting others to source it; I suspect a "list of deaths" isn't going to come from secondary sources anyway. And you did propose deleting or merging those Simpsons articles, not me. Most importantly, when it comes to cruft, I generally believe in keeping it if it's not vanispam, been well-written, and something useful to a large number of readers. This doesn't follow the hard-and-fast rules, I know; but I believe in using the rules as guidelines and letting common sense, a desire to serve the average reader, and an understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia rule the day. Especially when it comes to AfDs that generate this much discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by that reasoning I could have a List of measurements for my toe nail, and is enough people want to read about it, then that's ok. I go to college, being in college is a great achievement, thus I could be considered notable, and by association so could my toe nails. I don't think so. Random trivia is not notable. Who killed who is anything is not notable. The fact that someone wants to read about it doesn't change it's notability. 10 million people may want to read about my toe nails. My toe nails wouldn't be notable, but the fact that 10 million people wanting to read about them would be, luckily that isn't the case. The way death is portrayed in the Sopranos could be notable, but not a list of every minor character that died. Work it up in a List of characters article, and just have the actor's name end with this last appearance. Bignole 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlow family

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

Fictional family in children's series, nothing indicates notability, page was created in late 2005 and has been little improved since, nothing to redirect it to that would make any sense. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge with Topfreedom. The current article in its entirety is now in the Topfreedom article. Redirect kept as this is a likely search term. --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Jacob

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

She got her tits out! And gets a mountain of googles because, guess what?, tits get that on the internet. There's simply no-way this one incident can merit a biography (where's the sources). I'd call this a COATRACK for the nudity lobby, but as someone already remarked, there's less of the coat and more of the rack. -Docg 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then have an article on the case, or on the issue (not that we lack them) but I see NO sources for a biography of the individual.--Docg 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Generally, people who are known only due to a news item would get merged into a news item. However, this individual triggered a landmark legal ruling which steps it above the usual person in a news story situation. The amount of news coverage is tremendous. For eXample, this New York Times article. -- Whpq 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The level of news coverage isn't the issue. There's enough news coverage to mean that we can cover the issue. The question is do we have enough notable biographical information on the subject to merit a biography? Can a biography be written about this subject that isn't really just the news-story or the courtcase posing as a biography. I say no, but if you can provide sources that include notable information apart from the newsstory, I'm happy to change my mind.--Docg 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I would not be opposed to reforming the material in the article to be about the court case if there is insufficient reliable sources to establish a bio. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have to agree with Doc. Jacob was a one-hit wonder. She got her 5 minutes of fame. So what if women can bare their breasts in public. Since that time I haven't seen any new trends in public nudity. This is another case of "Interesting, yes, but who cares?" Bombycil 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Moke (SUV)

Mini Moke (SUV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

violation of WP:Crystal Ball and lacks sources Butterfly0fdoom 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota ACE

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

Not only is it pure speculation (WP:Crystal Ball), there's no sources, either. Butterfly0fdoom 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The article changes so much since Doc glasgow and JzG gave their opinions (link), notably resulting in the nominator changing 'sides', and as such these two factors mean there is no way to determine a consensus from this debate. Daniel 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Schults

nn semi-pro wrestler, only about 400 google hits, obvious WP:COATRACK as it talks about the incident he had, and not about him. Delete This is a Secret account 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improvements This is a Secret account 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He retired as a wrestler prior to the WWW, so lack of Ghits isn't terribly significant. The John Stossel bitchslap and resulting lawsuit had major coverage in the US. Article could be improved admittedly, but nomination is based on recentism not lack of notability. Horrorshowj 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ordinarily, people use the word recentism to describe the problem of articles being written about news stories with short-lived attention, which will not be of interest in 10 years. That is how the Stossel incident appears to me. So you must mean something else by recentism - what? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by it is giving undue weight to recent events and people, and conversely an inability to evaluate anything older than about ten years accurately, because you can only view it in the context of current events. I view this Afd as fitting for two reasons. First, the mention of Ghits as lack of notability. While most current pro-wrestlers generate a lot applying the same notion to someone who retired in the mid to late 1980s is ridiculous, as that's pre WWW in an industry that goes out of its way to dissuade long memories. Second, he characterized the subject as a semi-pro wrestler, apparently due to his being in regional promotions. This ignores the fact that prior to about the same time his career ended there were no national promotions in North America. Schults was in every one of the major promotions for 15-20 years which is a pretty good track record and definitely not deserving of a semi-pro description. Horrorshowj 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay not a policy or guideline. It also primarily refers to articles that are pushing a biased interpretation. What about the article is pushing a bias? Horrorshowj 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw keep it....it's an interesting tidbit. Not every article should be a feature length production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.155.197 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series)

Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As one can tell from this article's talk page, deletion sentiment has been simmering all the way since it was first created. The article author's WP:OWN-y attitude and stubborn refusal to justify contentious statements in the article with sources has not helped any. At any rate, these are not deletion reasons. I contend that the article does not cover a notable topic; there is nothing that makes Zelda dungeons any more notable than dungeons from any other game in the genre. Sure, dungeons exist in Zelda games, but that does not make them a notable topic to write an article about. The whole article amounts to poorly repeating what the "Gameplay" sections of each individual game article say, except with more WP:OR and unverifiable statements. Axem Titanium 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is a non-notable topic not backed by any reliable sources. At most, it deserves to be a sub-section of gameplay in the series article. TTN 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Primarily WP:OR with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. --SesameballTalk 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Largely OR, already covered by "Gameplay" sections of game articles and the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unsourced information. Should be merged to main Zelda page under gameplay if possible. --Hdt83 Chat 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - Okay. Everybody here probably expects that I'll weigh in on this debate, especially since I have SUCH a WP:OWN-y attitude about it (tell me YOU don't about YOUR OWN articles). This article was originally going to discuss dungeons in video games in general, but I could not conceive of any other games that really have "dungeons" in the sense that the Zelda series does, so it turned into a heavily Zelda-based article, which does include a loose definition of a "dungeon" in the sense used outside of the Zelda series. I don't feel that this subject, whether of Zelda or otherwise, gets proper treatment anywhere on Wikipedia, and so I set out to fill a perceived need for such a definition, and though some things that are mentioned in this article are similar to those in the articles written on each individual game, I haven't repeated anything. I put everything into my own words, with several sources to back some of the stuff up, while most of what is written herein can be found by anyone who has a console and a game. A lot of the video-game-related content on Wikipedia is written with the games as the basis for the majority of the information given in the articles, yet most people don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't doubt that the Zelda dungeons have served as the basis and model for many other things. Video games are a strong influence in modern cultures across the world. Zelda is one of the largest components in that category. Dungeons, which are one of the series' most prominent features, are part of the Zelda series and beg a definition, which cannot currently be found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for helping people improve their ideas, not tearing them down, but that's all I've gotten about this article so far.Cocoapropo 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, no, that's not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about building a premier encyclopedia on the web. Of course, that often means helping editors improve their ideas... but it also means there are many policies we must follow, such as the ones we've mentioned - like WP:V and WP:OR (and in this case WP:NOTE, since we're discussing whether the article should exist). As I mentioned in my delete vote, the problem with the article is that it is largely original research and has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, I would respectfully suggest that most editors are, in fact, fully capable of taking a detatched approach to articles they created or may have strong personal feelings about. --SesameballTalk 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR per Hyper Dragon. I, for one, don't feel that way about my own articles, most of which look completely different from when I first created them by now. JuJube 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Most of my "research" comes straight from the games themselves. One thing I was wondering about is that I noticed that the Hyrule article hasn't been nominated for deletion, even though it only has a small handful of sources, most of which are on one topic within the article, and none of which are notable or official that I can see, and most of the rest of the article is from the games themselves or player observation. What's your take on this, I wonder? If you are going to apply it to me, apply it to this situation and all others.Cocoapropo 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, and opinion with no reliable sources, and no notability -- Whpq 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Cocoapropo, your research is called source based research (as in primary source). Look here WP:OR and it will tell you about source based research, and how it can come straight from a video game, and that it is not OR at all. It will also tell you that primary sources such as this are allowed on WP, even though a lot of editors forget that. All you need to do to save your article is find some reliable secondary sources to back up you primary source. Nintendo power, news articles, fan cites ext. I believe that this is a notable topic and the most that should be done is move the whole thing to The Legend of Zelda (series) under its own heading. Obviously Zelda is notable, and you can't talk about Zelda without talking about the dungeons. Also, yes the article does need cleaned up, but thats not a reason to delete it. Cocoapropo, another thing about WP, unfortunately information added does need sources. And unfortunately again, you don't need sources to delete something. Saying "I think this is true" holds no ground whatsoever, but saying "I think this is false" is a valid argument. Its in no way fair, but its the way WP is run. Viperix 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Viperix, I really appreciate you for saying that. If you could help me come up with more secondary sources, I would appreciate that more. As for your comment, Mr. IP Address Only, I realize, as stated above, that there are dungeons in other games, but as I mentioned, I couldn't come up with any that were like the Zelda dungeons, which, as far as I know, have pretty unique dungeons in the strictest sense of the definition as purposed in this article. If you would like to add to the article to include other games and their so-called dungeons, please do, because that's what I was going for in the first place. I did mention these in the introduction to the article though in a very general fashion, so unless you have a significant contribution to make that would change the course of the whole article and merge the existing one into a new one to justify deleting this article, then save it for another place. If you are going to merge this into a new article, too, make sure the title of the article is broad so as to include all such dungeons. Thanks for your input.Cocoapropo 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dungeons in Zelda are not significantly different from other games, such as Dragon Warrior. 132.205.99.122 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – such a comparison of Zelda dungeons belongs on a blog or forum or something. Not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless it has some deeper influence or significance. --jacobolus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Such as what, jacobulus? If you have suggestions, please share. Respond on my talk page or the discussion page, if you read this. For the rest of you, I have added a few more references and specifically stated that EVERYTHING written in the article comes straight from the games, unless other references are specifically provided. I would also like to ask again if any of you feel that this subject gets proper treatment on Wikipedia already, and if so, where? Put yourself in the shoes of a non-Zelda fanatic and, if you were reading the Zelda articles, would you want to know what a "dungeon" is? Do the articles currently provide a decent working definition? If nothing else, if you're not going to help improve this article, at least help it be gently merged into an existing article (not multiple articles) where it would make sense, and provide a proper redirect. If, on the other hand, you do not feel that this subject receives proper treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, then it is a perfectly legitimate entry.Cocoapropo 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reviewed the sources you've added. Aside from the FAQ type sites, they would be fine for the Zelda series article. But none of the references provided support notability for dungeons in the Zelda series. In fact, I dont; even see the word dungeon used in them. They support facts you've added about the series. But that infromation belongs in the Zelda series article. -- Whpq 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball close: rivers are notable if verifiable. `'Míkka 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iavardi River

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

I think this river is not notable. I believe that it did not receive any significant coverage in any type of source (emphasis used to refer to WP:N). The only sources in which it seems to appear are maps. I have proposed the article for deletion before, but the prod was removed. The subsequent discussion on the talk page did not convince me that this subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Pepve 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, major geographic features such as rivers are inherently notable. It's likely there are print sources and non-English sources that can eventually be used for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does this inherent notability come from? Which policy or guideline states it? How small must a river be not to be included? And have you checked Google Maps as I did, only to conclude that the river is probably no more than two foot wide? (I'm sorry for all these questions, but this keeps me awake.) -- Pepve 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. If this was a drainage canal, maybe I'll support you. I can't find any guidelines in WP:NOTE and WP:LOCAL that says rivers should pass notability (maybe it is simply common sense that they do pass notability). Actually, if you understand Romanian, went on a library section that deals with Romanian rivers, have secured Romanian news articles then prove to me that this river is nn. Then I'll be convinced that you have a point. Alternatively, you could tag it {{geo-stub}} and wait for WP:RIVER or Romanian wikipedians to fix it (Fixing geo-stubs is hard work, trust me).--Lenticel (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in order to prove non-notability of some subject from an area where another language is spoken, one has to know that language. Enforcing that would give carte blanche to all speakers of small languages... Can we not just use common sense? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just shown you the non-common sense way to prove that the article is worthy of deletion because you simply don't get it (or refuse to get it). I did not say that this would be the approach in all foreign language articles, (the best way to address such problem is to notify a neutral wikipedian that understands the article or the Wikiproject in question). Oh by the way, define small language.--Lenticel (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with: "I simply don't get it." Because I really don't see the common sense in any of this. (And really, I'm not stupid enough to define 'small language'.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for replying to each and every comment, I'll pace myself after this one. Just this: from what principle, guideline or thought do you conclude that all rivers are notable? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common Sense. The New York Times just isn't going to write an in depth piece on most, if not all, rivers in Romania, yet it's still a river that provides water, food, and navigation, the source of original settlement for villages, towns and cities and being a tributary to much larger rivers. --Oakshade 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As you say Pepve, let's just use common sense. A river is obviously inherently notable. Nick mallory 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable geography stub to me. A quick google search (in English, even) reveals that the river's valley is notable for its limestone, and the river has a well-known local waterfall. I've added a little more to the article (though it would have been a keep in any case, even without it). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And my Google search brings up 455 hits. Regardless, I'm inclined to believe that all rivers are notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long a there are reliable sources showing existence agree that all such geographical features are automatically notable. Davewild 09:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw by nominator (is there such a thing?) This is a battle I can not win, my views on Wikipedia are apparently quite different from the views of a lot of co-Wikipedians. Rest assured that you did not convert me, I still believe that such articles have no place in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not have all information, a selection has to be made. There will not be enough potential editors in the world to finish the articles if everything was selected. (And Grutness, I want your Google!) -- Pepve 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Codes

Music Video Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A few things wrong here. Firstly, it isn't clear about this subject's notability. At first glance, it has plenty of references, but these all seem to relate to Myspace, or contradict what is written in the article. The page is more about music videos in Myspace, Myspace, or the supposed popularity of these codes - I quote from the last section - "At its peak, the term was searched over 500,000 times in a given month, providing us an insight into one of the Internets great phenomenon". This isn't backed up as a fact, and the alexa.com link here contradicts the "MusicVideoCodes.com is also a top 6,000 English website " statement in the article. Montchav 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Topic is of minor notability, this article is largely spam for one website. I think that "music video codes" are a key part of the social networking phenomenon, especially so on MySpace which was the first site to allow this customization. But the article would need better sources and substantial rewriting. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep May be in need of a review of the sources/references but the spread of music video codecs is definitely a major part of the social networking phenomenon, and if this is a major source of these codecs (as the article claims), than it is probably notable. Random89 08:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is spam. This is marketing for a website Doc Strange 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Coredesat 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female rock singers

List of female rock singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of female heavy metal singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Should be deleted for the same reason as List of female singers. They add nothing to Category:Female rock singers and Category:Female metal singers. Spellcast 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Brendanconway. — iridescent 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James collins, english singer

James collins, english singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Almost slapped an A7 on this as the claims to notability seem to amount to so much froth, but given the amount of work that's gone into this, bringing it over to give benefit of the doubt. Every claim in this article is less than it appears; on closer reading, this does not seem to actually be the bio of a bona fide opera singer, but a vanispam piece (albeit a cut about the usual WP:NOT#MYSPACE fodder) about someone with no actual achievements other than an appearance in what I strongly suspect is a single am-dram production. — iridescent 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Specifically, the article does not (and I don't think ever would be able to) provide significant coverage using reliable secondary, independent sources. Noetic Sage 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - additionally, the article makes no indication to ever provide claims of notability. --SesameballTalk 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do we really need a list of departments and labs? I doubt it. It's currently a linkfarm in some areas. We're not a directory, so delete. i (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. Also, the MIT web site does a very good job of listing Labs and Centers, as well as Departments. The main MIT article could just link to those pages. Note, I'm an MIT alumnus, Class of 1971. Lentower 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with all comments above. If we had some special 'edge' in describing how MIT was organized, or we knew something about MIT's structure that hadn't been widely publicized, then there could be a reason for this. I don't believe that is the case. Sourcing this correctly would be very tough; it would necessarily become a lagged and often incorrect copy of the directory on one of MIT's own websites. EdJohnston 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not fit for WP. And, good suggestion: simply link to the directories on the MIT website, they do a very good job there with those pages (unlike many other Universities, I may add). Turgidson 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to duplicate subpages of MIT's web site here. JJL 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least the department section. That doesn't seem well described on MIT's site. Therefore it could be of interest to people who want to understand MIT's structure. Unless the labs can be arranged similarly, I'll support their removal Mbisanz 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the MIT Depatment page, if you mouse over the name of the school, the names of the departments in the school are also highlighted, which shows the structure. If you need something more like the way it's done on the List we are considering deleting, I suggest you ask the MIT Webmasters to do it there. That helps all Internet users, not just those who look at WP. Lentower 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Encyclopedic topic, lots of room for expansion. --Fang Aili talk 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who play left handed

List of musicians who play left handed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unless being left handed had a profound impact on their career, this is an indiscriminate and trivial list. Spellcast 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep If you're familiar at all with playing a guitar, you'll have to admit that most guitars are designed to be played "right-handed". Essentially, you finger the chords with your left-hand, and you "play" the guitar (the strumming and picking that separates the pros from the amateurs) with your right hand. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's less of a problem now, with backward-looking "left-handed guitars" available, but the problem is in the way that the strings are configured. Mandsford 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. Unless them being left handed is important and relevant, then there is no need for such a list. If it is relevant to someone, put it in their article. If we start getting a few, we can make an article about it. But I doubt that will ever happen. So delete it. i (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable intersection of traits. Axem Titanium 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually left-handedness and mixed-handedness are both linked to musical accomplishment in adults. See my comment below for details and a WP:RS. - Neparis 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just seems too trivial for a list on WP. I understand the difference it makes in learning to play but I think it makes more sense in context of the individual articles rather than as a grouped list. Interesting but not really very encyclopedic in my view. Pigmanwhat?/trail 20:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Being left-handed is relevant here because playing left-handed is different from playing right-handed. There are books written about playing left-handed guitar. (added: Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Troy Stetina, for example.) Etc. Being left-handed may not have a profound effect on their career, but it has a profound effect on the way they play. Albert King, for instance, had a unique style because he was left-handed, as well as Elizabeth Cotten. They both played a right-handed guitar left-handed without restinging it, which made the string backwards for a left-handed person. It also affected the playing of Jimi Hendrix because he played right-handed guitars altered for left-handed playing, but leaving the controls alone, so they were on the opposite side as normal for him. Steve Miller (musician) thought that this was such an important factor in Hendrix's playing that he had a special guitar made that was essentially a left-handed guitar altered for right-handed playing. (added: In fact, the photo on that page shows him playing such a guitar.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: this is a lot more relevant than, say, actors who are left-handed. I've been wanting to expand this artice to explain more about it. A left-handed person who plays guitar either (1) learns to play right-handed (awkward at best, impossible at worst), (2) plays a right-handed guitar upside down, making the strings backward for a left-handed person, leading to a different style, and (3) playing a proper left-handed guitar. And category (3) can be broken down into (3a) play a true left-handed guitar and (3b) play a right-handed guitar modified for playing left-handed. And (3b) involves problems with intonation and non-symmetrical bracing and other features of the guitar. There is a lot more here than meets the eye at first glance. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I don't want to significantly change the article while it is up for deletion, but instead of deleting it, I would like a chance to expand it to more than just a list. Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you do it now, actually. If you can satisfy some of those who support deletion while the article is still being discussed, then it's all good. i (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to do a lot of work on the article and then have it deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've somewhat changed my mind after giving examples of musicians where playing left handed had an effect on their work. But how much can be said for the rest of the musicians in the list? Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Category-fy" mean? Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He means make the list into a category like Category:Musicians who play left handed. Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would do any good because it wouldn't explain anything. Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory text can be added to the category header. Alternately, an article on left-handed musicianship can be written, and a link to the category can be made to look like a link to a list, as I have done with List of hip hop musicians from Memphis, Tennessee. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is exactly the type of information that is good for a list and bad for a category, and while it's not the greatest list in execution, it easily could be much better. Lists allow for sources and explication that categories do not (e.g. what type(s) of guitar a player had learned, or nuances of style). It is unquestionable that left-handed guitarists have been among the most influential rock guitarists and there has been speculation why this is so; there's a whole book about it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book is $350. I've bought 20 or so books to use as references for WP, but this one is too expensive. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan to use as a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NOTE and WP:V. There is a statistically significant increase in the proportion of left-handers (and mixed-handers) in skilled adult instrumentalists, composers and singers as compared with a normal population, and this increase is not a consequence of musical training. Being left-handed or mixed-handed makes someone more likely to be musically talented. This link between handedness and musicality in adults has been well documented in WP:RS; see, for example:
    • John P Aggleton (1994), Handedness and Musical Ability: A Study of Professional Orchestral Players, Composers, and Choir Members, Psychology of Music 22(2):148-156
    - Neparis 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't think that musicians playing left handed was particularly special. But after reading the comments by Bubba and the source given by Neparis, I see that it may not be as much of a trivial intersection as I thought. It would be good to see the article cite sources though. Spellcast 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlee Yarrow

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

This is a repost but having looked at the previous article, this is sufficiently different in its claim of his being the "first person to be expelled from the Socialist Party", that it doesn't qualify for speedy deleted under CSD G4. The ten references are not as they seem: the first four do not mention him at all; the fifth is just a mention; the sixth is to a website which list every person in the country running for office and this candidate's answers to a boilerplate survey sent to all such candidates (accordingly not an independent nor a reliable secondary source); the seventh, eighth and ninth are blogs, and the last supposedly had an article on his appearance at a coffee shop, but which article is not found through that link.

A Google search doesn't turn up anything further that could be seen as significant treatment in any independent, reliable source. He's not a political figure who has ever held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, nor was ever a member of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Accordingly, the subject [still] does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all of the convincing evidence and rationale given by Fuhghettaboutit. i (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only relevant news coverage I could find was this. Note that being the first to be kicked out of the party isn't all that notable considering the resultant non-coverage of the event in the news. -- Whpq 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Scary Movie

Minor characters in Scary Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable list of characters that fails WP:FICT. It details minor characters that do not need coverage, so it is essentially indiscriminate information also. TTN 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Simply not notable enough. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa Plaza

Santa Rosa Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Regional mall, no apparent notability presented in the article or cited. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my comment above. Your third link is about crime that takes place at the mall, not about it. And you could have saved yourself the trouble of linking to the same Hated Google Test as I did.--victor falk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read your comment above and you're either ignoring the non-trivial coverage this topic has received or simply trying to get mall articles deleted (I see you're giving the same cut-and-paste argument on other mall articles AfDs). You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and simply don't like malls. If you want to change WP:NOTABILITY, you have to make your argument there, not on a specific article's AfD. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't especially like or dislike malls, but I love wikipedia articles about malls. For instance, I love Country Club Plaza. That's a good article. It tells me more about it than what's its anchors are and wether or not Microsoft offers wifi there. It tells me trivia like it was it was dubbed "Nichol's Folly" because the land bought for it was used for pig farming. It tells me quadrivia like as the first mall designed for automobile shoppers, so it had a major impact on American consumer habits. It is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, I can't see no shadow of that in Santa Rosa Plaza. If anybody truly believes there is the tiniest spark, {{sofixit}}. Don't bother about sources, just write; I will change my vote to keep without a single one, as long as it plausible enough not be a hoax.--victor falk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You simply don't like the non-trivial secondary sources about this topic and the fact they establish notability. You're citing only one article that remotely supports your non-existent guideline argument and ignoring the others which are much more deeper in scope about this mall than the Microsoft story anyway. And the argument to delete this article just because it's not as good as another is also non-sensical (I guess that's the fictional WP:NOTASGOODAS guideline). Wikipedia is a never-ending project and it takes time, sometimes a lot of it, for articles on notable topics to improve. --Oakshade 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neutral Perhaps its size is sufficient for it being notable. In this case, the article has to be expanded with those claims, and non-subscription sources added.--victor falk 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback per precedent with other contestant articles and since no strong reason to keep was mentioned in the debate. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Olson

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

Doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor, and ample precedent proves that Survivor alone isn't enough for a page. For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Kimball, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Franklin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Angarita.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 00:30, 11/4/2007

Medieval Combat Society

Medieval Combat Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable historical reenactment group, only 23 Ghits, none of them significant coverage. Masaruemoto 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Schultz

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

Apparently non-notable graphic designer. Being an editor, or even a "founding member", of even a recognized journal is not notable, IMHO. Even if I'm wrong there, we have no sources for the journal being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous {{PROD}} restored, as the recreation appears to also contain an appeal of that deletion, which should be automatically restored.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Campbell (Scary Movie)

Cindy Campbell (Scary Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I'm saying that there is a good chance she would have sources, and because she is a more important aspect of the series, I'd be more inclined to accept less sources than I normally would. However, we currently lack that, so I said delete for now. i (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty Meeks (Scary Movie)

Shorty Meeks (Scary Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze Oil Orgy

Jenna Haze Oil Orgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Warning to those of a sensitive disposition or editing from work: page contains a pornographic image. Contested speedy deletion under somewhat dubious circumstances (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rlk89). As "the first Blu-Ray porn film" is, I suppose, a vague assertion of notability - and any prod is bound to be contested - bringing it here. Personally, I don't think "first released in a particular medium" is a sufficient assertion of notability, given the sheer number of different video/film formats there have been over the years (and the fact that the first in any given format will almost certainly vary country-by-country), but others may beg to differ. — iridescent 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge with Positive psychology. --Polaron | Talk 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation (psychology)

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

Procedural nomination per conversation here. This was transwikied to Wiktionary some months ago and hence {{prod}}ded off Wikipedia; however it appears to no longer exist on Wiktionary. (Without wikt sysop powers, I've no way to tell whether it never made it across for some reason, or was deleted after its arrival there.) In light of that, bringing it procedurally to AfD for a consensus as to whether it should remain on Wikipedia, be re-transwikied, merged into another Wikipedia article or deleted. — iridescent 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Positive psychology. This seems a valid concept in positive psychology, and thus merits SOME mention that article, but there is not enough information here to merit a separate article. No prejudice to recreating the seperate article if the main article becomes large enough, and this gets enough information to stand alone, but as it stands now, there is little more here than a dictionary definition --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, on the triple. Daniel 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson

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

This article is liabilist. The information is inaccurate. Dr. Johnson did not "lie" about her application. See the State of New Mexico Board Order. There were not 6 lawsuits. Recommend immediate removal.fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggyLinda (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a colleague of Dr Johnson's. I have worked with her for many years. She is a competent, conscientious doctor who is very concerned with her patient’s well being. Although she has had difficulties associated with major surgical procedures in the past, she has shifted her practice to a specialty that does not require such procedures, and so should be allowed to practice without continuous harassment. Dr Johnson left the practice of OB/GYN in 2002; she has not done surgery since. The Washington Post article was based on an article written in the Los Alamos Monitor. At the time of the article, Dr Johnson was no longer practicing as an obstetrician/gynecologist; she was undergoing another residency training program in preventive medicine after having decided that she would change her practice specialty. The reporter knew this, but she wrote in the article that Dr Johnson was an obstetrician/gynecologist even though she knew this information to be inaccurate.

The Washington Post article has many erroneous statements. Dr Johnson had applied for her VA, NM and MI licenses before she was aware that she had made an error in her application. She made the same error on all application forms based on the information that she received from her NC attorney. Her North Carolina attorney stated this to the VA Medical Board. It is not true that she moved from state to state to avoid problems with the respective state medical boards. The initial medical board order was not written until after Dr Johnson had completed all of these licensure applications and had been practicing in VA and NM. Anyone could tell this by looking at the dates, but the reporter elected to ignore this information and thus made up her own story about Dr Johnson, adding and deleting information until she had a sensational but erroneous story. Dr Johnson had medical licenses in 4 different states. How many times have you unintentionally made an error on an application form and been punished this aggressively? Dr Johnson has been punished more than 4 times by different medical boards for the same error in her applications. In addition, the patient the Washington Post reporter wrote about, was not Dr Johnson's personal patient, she was a non-paying patient who had surgery done by the resident physicians; Dr Johnson's name was one of the attending names on the chart, along with many other Duke physicians. Dr Johnson talked to the editor of the Washington Post after the article was written and explained how the reporter misinterpreted and twisted the information. I believe the reporter is no longer at the Washington Post....but excessive damage has occurred.

I would highly recommend that this article be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaSammy (talk • contribs)

  • Delete db-bio, db-attack, take your pick. NN person that lost her medical license and was brought to malpractice. One real media source, BLP magnet. Not improved since last AFD. Don't mind the wall of text above. Clear WP:POINT nomination, but that doesn't make the article any less crappy. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I didn't explicitly !vote during the prior AFD my sentiments were clearly in favor of something like a weak keep. At this point it's clear that Johnson does not meet a continuing coverage test and indeed has very limited attention outside of the one WaPo series. I don't believe she satisfies WP:BIO or WP:BLP1E at this time. Note that I removed about two paragraphs from SashaSammy's post that were clearly libelous against an individual (and basically an ad hominem argument). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure she's a very poor physician - I wouldn’t let her within 10 feet of my pregnant wife. But this is a slanderous attack page. Dr. Johnson will get her just reward/punishment; the wheels turn slowly, but let's not have Wikipedia serve to harm her. Tiptopper 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:N and WP:RS, but edit. JJL 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. If a list article is created and someone wishes to merge, feel free to let me know. Coredesat 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF 7687

BNSF 7687 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A non notable locomotive.

Also including BNSF 7695 Nuttah68 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Stormie 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carbajal

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

The only notable thing about this guy is his father was a Uruguayan soccer player. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO. He's a notable athlete by playing for Toronto Croatia, which is professional team in the highest level Canadian soccer league, the Canadian Soccer League. Athletes that play at the highest level in their sport are notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was his dad that played for Toronto Croatia. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah. good catch. I misread that. Then he is absolutely non-notable, and this article appears to a borderline A7 speedy. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7 by User:Hemlock Martinis. --Stormie 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Park Esq

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

Obviously untrue, and complete nonsense --J.StuartClarke 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Leather Jesus

Black Leather Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Black Leather Jesus is a noise collective from Houston formed by Richard Ramirez. This 3-line article has been tagged since June 2007. I'm unsure whether they count as "notable" - they did open up for Sonic Youth in their hometown, but the first links that come up in Google are MySpace, and Wikipedia. I'm also suspecting that maybe this article should just be merged into Richard Ramirez. If there's any proof that these guys (or Ramirez) are as "notable" as Orphx or Coil or Merzbow, I'd think we could keep it; but it's not up to me, it's up to Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cepheus Seal

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

An article on a weapon from a video game. Very little content, article has been tagged "unclear" and "nn" since June, no real-world content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn Confederation

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

Heavy in universe plot summary about a fictional race of lizards. Article does not any cite reliable sources as evidence of notability outside the game from which it derives. Gavin Collins 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The references still seem good enough to me, being highly authoritative. But since you're shouting so loudly, I've just been through my piles of dusty magazines to add another one.Colonel Warden 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources lack independence which is what is needed; they are to the actual works of fiction rather than to some source unconnected to said works of fiction. if you have those magazines where the subject is discussed, and can provide those references, that would be very helpful. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gorn, Gorn, gone. Unnotable. Clarityfiend 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - even I remember the Gorn. That was the big dinosaur that Kirk fought, right? He used gunpowder to kill the thing. The fight scene was referenced in an episode of Family Guy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. [10] I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [11] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [12] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [13] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is 'not Gorn] which covers the appearance of the race in Star Trek but rather about the derived group in the Star Fleet Universe which is rather less notable. I believe that a delete is appropriate because this is already adequately covered in other places but won't strenuously object to a merge to Races of the Star Fleet Universe or a similar article. Eluchil404 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted WP:CSD#G3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petz (TV Series)

Petz (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources offered in article to confirm notability (or existance). Gsearch doesn't turn up a series of this name on Cartoon Network, no entry in IMDb. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avena Lee

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was yes, keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is disputed whether or not there should be an article about "no", as some have claimed this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, we do currently have an article about "yes". This was originally brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I'm moving it over here and unredirecting for now so a discussion about the article can occur. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Circus Shopping Centre


Drake Circus Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing nomination for 81.132.102.112. Reason given is "not notable - based mostly on old news stories - inaccurate facts - advertising a shopping mall - incorrect trademark attribution - see discussion page". --- RockMFR 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note this may be a bad-faith nomination [14]. ELIMINATORJR 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irrespective of whether it's bad faith, this is a small shopping centre in a not especially big place. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The sooner this article disappears down the pan the better. Its notability is in question even though the nominator's comment "based mostly on old news stories" means that it has actually had press coverage. The cost of the disruption to WP that this and its associated article (Drake Circus has caused outweighs its usefulness to the project. It most certainly is a bad faith nomination as well as a WP:POINT making exercise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the place is a nonentity in global terms. ---- WebHamster 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Change of mind. After seeing some of the comments here and doing some Google searches (144,000 hits on ""drake circus" -drakecircus.com"). In fact it's looking like it should be the Drake Circus article that's up for AfD, not this one. I couldn't find anything about Drake Circus on Google that wasn't related to the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have no idea what your comment is trying to say, but the first link is not an independent source (and so what if some houses are being built there, that is no indicator of notability it just means there was some spare land there) and the second link is about the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 14:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you had forgotten this is what you advised another user ... "It looks like your complaint should be with Google not Wikipedia. WP does not control what Google indexes or how it is indexed. Google indexes are not verified by anyone and there is no requirement to do so as it its virtually totally automated. Rather than commit any more faux pas I suggest you click on Drake Circus then click on Drake Circus Shopping Centre and then report back on your findings. Meanwhile it may be prudent to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia is not spelt G-O-O-G-L-E. ---- WebHamster 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" 81.155.65.71 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and...? ---- WebHamster 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god.81.155.65.71 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why gHits are used contextually. In this context 144,000 hits for what you like to term "just some shops" is contextually relevant. gHits are not used as an absolute source, but they can be a reasonably reliable indicator in extremes. ---- WebHamster 14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the second link appearing on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' or 'drake circus shopping' is indeed about the shopping centre - that is the shopping centre of the drake circus district - not the shopping mall - please try and understand the two are seperate and apart.81.155.65.71 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as more like "shops in the centre of Drake Circus" rather than as a "shopping centre". This site would not be considered to a WP:RS as the site is provided by one of the local shopkeepers, i.e. Silverstall Jewellers, and is therefore not independent. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this discussion, as is your Google digression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which is a mall - separate and distinct from the shopping centre within the Drake Circus area (also appears on first page of google for drake Circus) - In case you had forgot the drake circus.com site is also provided by a local shopkeeper - albeit possibly a bigger one.Nicole 50dc 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: then the vandals will find another article they don't like: "nonentity in global terms" could apply to the vast majority of people/places that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. - Snigbrook 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the first half, but I agree with the second half of what Snigbrook writes. Consider this, etc. etc. -- Hoary 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak and conditional delete Only claim to notability, if any, is its badness; if the opinion that it was an unparallelled atrocity were a published article rather than a website, I would support keeping this. Otherwise: there is a shopping centre; it has had cash flow problems; the neighbours object. Dog bites man. Include in the article on the neighborhood, if at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WebHamster and Septentrionalis. Notability is shakey at best and someone needs to take away these bored students' soapbox. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Drake Circus. Sufficient notability but not sure of need for two articles. Snigbrook 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the shopping centre seems to be notable, maybe the Drake Circus article should be merged into this and other articles. Snigbrook 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: actually the Drake Circus article is useless, as its purpose seems to be an attempt to prove a point that Drake Circus is an area that does not include the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Snigbrook 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the Drake Circus article is (or will be)an attempt to publish an account of a district that among other things brings together a rich variety of scientific, cultural, academic and historical institutions and values. The mall is not in the same area so you may just as well merge it into an article on Sir Francis Drake or Chipperfield Circus. Its only connection is the similarity of the name (its like merging an article on Paris Hilton into an article on Paris)Nicole 50dc 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete its contents are not verified as the 'official' site it refers to contains no or completely different facts. It is completely unheard of outside Plymouth and the references to the BBC links are extremely localized and old news. There also seems to be an issue/dispute over the use of an unlicensed logo/trademark which does inclusion of this article justify. As for 'merge' it is not in the Drake Cicus district and has nothing to with it other than sharing a similar name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This IP has, rather bizarrely, complained to himself about legal threats; otherwise, his edits are very few and devoted to this shopping centre. -- Hoary 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the course of trying to link to their terms and conditions page on their website it was mysteriously taken down and replaced with a pop-up. It then left my original post stranded with no reference. I tried to explain this on my user page but i admit not very well which is why i changed it. For obvious reasons i cannot and will not discuss my correspondence with other third parties. It seems more than a coincidence that their site was being rapidly changed last night/this morning when web archives will confirm that no pages had been updated for nearly a year and it seems obvious that whoever is operating that site is closely monitoring anything said on this site. In any event what has any of this to do with my original post other than your attempts to yet again divert or flame the orginal subject matter being discussed.
        • No, it was just a standard sock-puppet warning for the benefit of whoever closes this AfD. Meanwhile, enjoy your conspiracy theories but don't assume that they interest other people. -- Hoary 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In support of its (unwanted!) notability I've added to the article another link about the "truly awful" design, this one from The Times; and clarified that the Carbuncle Cup is awarded by Building Design, which is "the UKs best-read architectural weekly with a circulation in excess of 25,000, thats 70% of all architects across the UK."[17] --Smalljim 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the article is pretty much a stub "unencyclopaedic" isn't necessarily an accurate description. It's "chief resource" is not the website. Only minor details for the info box have been taken directly from the website (floor space, owners/developers, management company). The rest is either from editor input or external news sources.
Having a side-effect of being an advert is not a reason to delete an article. The article is not written in an advertorial manner, there's a difference.
The article does not describe the mall as being the only covered shopping mall in the south-west, the website does that so it has no relevance to this AfD.
I don't know why you choose to use the term "disgraceful" in relation to the war memorial. That's being non-NPOV and has no place on WP. The sentence in question "The new building, designed by Chapman Taylor Partnership and situated behind the ruined Charles Church, preserved as the city's civilian war memorial, has provoked a mixed reception." could hardly be described as being disgraceful.
So it seems that none of your points stand, add to the fact that this is a SPA account then I advise the closing admin to disregard the comments. ---- WebHamster 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not written in an advertorial manner "..with a wide range of fillings. It has branches across Britain." on its spudulike stub. Or "It includes such retailers as Next, Primark, Waterstone's, Virgin, Spudulike, Burger King and Schuh, and abuts an enlarged Marks and Spencer.". If you want to turn wikipedia into a shopping directory then fine go ahead. Why is there an article on these few shops anyway? Why not allow any and every shop an article? I’m sure any local shop could dredge up some link to a news item about a shoplifter caught on its premises, or a vandalsim or opening soon or new manager etc etc.Nicole 50dc 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the Spudulike article has no relevance to this AfD per WP:WAX. Secondly, thanks for your permission, I'm sure Jimbo will be so pleased. ---- WebHamster 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 references, at least two of which are both from RSs and substantial. That's more than most shopping centers. The nomination is apparently a dispute between whether the name applies to the area, the shopping enter, or the university located there. For documentation see the talk page of the article--where the various parties attempt to accuse each other of libel and other legal issues. See further the comments of WebHamster at the user page of one of the people who made the threats. [18]. (he has already been blocked for it by another admin). This should be speedy kept as an obvious bad faith and disruptive nomination. DGG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The main reference is the drake circus.com site which itself states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." Either it is out of date or it is accurate - either way it does not reconcile with any of the facts stated in the article. The other references relate to minor local news which again are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reference is not official website much as you would like it to be. Your arguments seem very similar to other SPA editors here so it could be a reasonable assumption that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Regardless of that please be aware that from a WP standpoint notability does not have a time limit and doesn't time out, therefore being "old news" is irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an encyclopedia is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a shopping mall was opened in 2006, but they will care about e.g. the battle of hastings because that was a truly exceptional notable event.Nicole 50dc 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's an article about a new £200m shopping centre that has received considerable press. What the off-wiki website does or doesn't say is irrelevant to this AfD ---- WebHamster 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is the chief source upon which you base the article and it is factually wrong and out of date.81.155.65.71 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't the chief source. See above ---- WebHamster 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
make up your mind! In the discussion pages webhamster said
"I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from?" ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
“...The official website of the shopping centre is so far the most reliable source (per WP guidelines) we have.” WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your incessant contradictions are unneccassirly drawing out this discussion to a point where it becomes as unreadable as the discussion page. Please stop.Nicole 50dc 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your incessant trolling, misspelling and using quotes out of context is noted and will no longer be responded to, at least not by me. ---- WebHamster 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point made was to draw attention to the various contradictions you keep making. You elected for this article to be deleted - then you changed it to keep it - based on a few Google results which you kept on emphasizing were of no consequence. You kept on and on that drakecircus.com was the official site and now you are saying it is not. Anyone who dares to challenge you is labeled a troll or puppet or whatever and you block them. Why can’t we have a level-headed discussion?81.155.65.71 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no contradictions. It's all been spelled out to you in very basic terms. If you can't or won't understand then that's your problem, not mine. What is clear is that you are attempting to steer the discussion away from the fact that there now appears to be some notability much to your chagrin. Your digressions are transparent to the experienced editors here, as is your trolling. If you wish to learn then look at WP:Notability and WP:RS, if you don't then may I suggest you just read the sports page of the Daily Star. BTW, I'm done with your obtuse trolling. ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should understand what a "stub" is before passing comments like this. ---- WebHamster 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not as experienced as you in whatever Wikipedia terminology is correct or wrong, but i thought a stub was an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. This article only has a few sentences and most of that is simply repeating what is in drakecircus.com.81.155.65.71 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It already is pretty much a stub so how do you suggest we "stub" it further? ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o.k. so if it is a stub from Drake_circus- My point is to make it a stub from shopping malls81.155.65.71 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a "stub from Drake Circus", neither can it be a "stub from shopping mall", it isn't a "stub" from anything. A stub is an individual article containing very little information. It may or may not belong in a category, it may or may not belong to a WikiProject but it doesn't come FROM anything. Does that explain it enough for you? ---- WebHamster 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep it but remove the links to the shops as to me it looks like an advert for those shops. I think maybe the history of the old shopping mall is more notable than the current mall particularly with reference to concrete cancer, the former occupiers of the office block, the way it acquired planning permission in the first place (i.e. the deal that was struck between P&O and the local council), the old shops that were demolished, the crane that collapsed during construction etc etc. All it needs is more impartial editing. (Less pro-v-anti mall) which hopefully might include reference to the good and the bad impact it has had on the local economy.Nicole 50dc 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Change of mind. To be factually accurate the shopping mall is called 'DrakeCircus' as evidenced by their logo and the signage on their building. The reason the developers did not add a space between Drake and Circus was to avoid confusion with the existing shopping centre within the Drake Circus area.Nicole 50dc 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your evidence that they did this is what? Are you sure it's not just a design element? All publicity mentions and every reference to the place on their own website is Drake Circus Shopping Center (c/w space). That doesn't seem to me to be either demonstrating a desire to separate the two or to demonstrate that it's actually "drakecircus Shopping Centre" or are you attempting to show that the lowercase wording is significant too? ---- WebHamster 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[19]Please see the banner image of their entrance sign. All the signs throughout their building are similarily labelled 'DrakeCircus'. (I note www.Drake-circus.com. and all other 'Drake-circus' TLD's are still available)Nicole 50dc 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same design element as in their logo. You have heard of maintaining design elements across different media haven't you? As regards the TLDs, so what, you will find that most company names in domain names forego the space, the rest of the supposition is an other example of your propensity for WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend that you look for written proof rather than images that contain elements of graphic design. Once again I note the absence of proof for another of your assertions. ---- WebHamster 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hamster, on 19:22, 5 November 2007 (see above) you were done with [this SPA's] obtuse trolling. I don't know about you, but I'm still done with it, and I suspect most people are too. -- Hoary 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't find my Yo-yo :P ---- WebHamster 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posh and Becks

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

Rationale: This is a tabloid neologism more worthy of the tabloid journalism which generated it than an encyclopaedia. (Note that User:Bumm13 is the actual nominator.) Orderinchaos 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason for maintaining it, note that that falls more within Wiktionary's scope than ours - we're not a dictionary. Orderinchaos 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Delete. There is nothing noteworthy about this couple as a couple -- individually, they are notable and have articles about them, but together, there's not really anything to say about them except hey, they're together. It is conceivable that this could be turned into a disambiguation page (to the two of them, obviously), even though I don't particularly like the idea, due to the dismal inefficiency of the wiki's search capabilities. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I wouldn't say that these two are not notable as a couple. Their couple aspect is one of the most notable things about them, as the term clearly demonstrates. "Posh and Becks" isn't just any celebrity duo term/nickname, and their union is treated as if they are King and Queen, with the media often calling them a supercouple, power couple, and other types of "Oh, they are the 'it' couple" names. Sure, they don't act as superheroes together, off trying to save every dying child, but they are a notable couple. Flyer22 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you haven't demonstrated as to how they are notable. The media "coins" phrases and "concepts" all the time. Wikipedia doesn't include such topics in the non-entertainment realm. Why not? Wikipedia doesn't because it is not a news outlet. Concepts about specific "supercouples" falls into the domain of tabloids and entertainment news. Thus, terms used to describe such nebulous entertainment trends and fads are neologisms. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree that I haven't shown that the term is notable. I have, and so do the sources. Concepts about specific supercouples are allowed to be included on Wikipedia, when they are notable enough, whether they are a fad or not. Most everything can be considered a fad, but that does make it any less notable. In some years, the phrase "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" may be considered a fad, but that doesn't make it any less notable. The term Posh and Becks isn't so much of a fad anyway, I'd say, as Stormie points out below. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "one of the most notable things about them"? More notable than being captain of a national football (soccer) team, being the most highly-paid footballer in the world, having a movie named after him, having fistfuls of hit single ...? - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I said one of the most notable. Yes. Flyer22 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very common term applied to them a as a couple, at least in the UK media. Ben W Bell talk 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Yes, it has sources... but we have articles about them seperately as people, and this seems kinda unnecessary... although it's a well known phrase...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to David and Victoria Beckham Carter | Talk to me 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't solve the problem of notability in this instance. Such a move would only weasel around the problem of using neologisms. In order for David and Victoria Beckham to have their own article, the duo has to be notable outside of their individual notabilities. This works fine for Sonny and Cher; it doesn't work in this instance. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I stated on my talk page, this article does satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when it is notable. This is a term, neologism or not, that has had a lot of exposure and impact. If the term is worthy enough to be entered into dictionaries, then it is worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is all about notability, and this term is definitely notable. Flyer22 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as stated by Jonathan Bowen in the first deletion debate for this article, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001, so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism." Flyer22 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not well referenced. Of the five references, one is from a PR press release site, one is from a clearinghouse site and one is the couples' own website, none of which satisfy WP:RS. The other two are not about the term "Posh and Becks"; they merely use the term and per WP:NEO that's not good enough. Otto4711 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This may be WP:WAX, but consider the fact that we have articles on Lennon/McCartney and The Glimmer Twins, to quote two of my favourite bands, that deal with people who are linked to one another (although obviously not in the same sense as Posh and Becks) and those have not been nominated for deletion... yet.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sources that show this term is notable. Using the term makes it valid, but not notable. So delete. i (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. No sources that show this term is notable? The article surely does, as others have cited above, and as was the reason why this article was kept before. If a celebrity couple name being entered into the Collins Concise English Dictionary, as well as becoming a term that encompasses a culture, isn't notable, then I don't know what celebrity couple name is. Flyer22 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where does it say that the term Posh and Becks was not entered into the dictionary? The source here states, "News correspondent Kate Adie and actor Ronnie Barker are some of the famous names removed from the new Collins Concise English Dictionary to make way for David and Victoria Beckham. As well as new celebrities making it into dictionary there is a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted."[20] David Beckam and Victoria Beckam is not a famous/notable expression. "Posh and Becks" is. And this source here...[21]...shows that the term is included to mean sex. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it not say the term Posh and Becks? Well, I don't know to answer that; in the article? It says that Kate Adie and Ronnie Barker were replaced by David and Victoria Beckham, not Posh and Becks. You still have not shown me a source that shows that "Posh and Becks" is a notable expression. i (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not shown you? The sources above, as well as other sources within this article, clearly showcase the term as notable. Whether you don't feel that it is notable is your opinion, I suppose. The article states that those two were entered into the dictionary, and the title of that article refers to the term Posh and Becks. I don't see how an assumption can be drawn that the phrase that was entered into the dictionary was David and Victoria Beckham, when that is not the phrase/term that captivated British culture. And when the article mentions that a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted have been included within that dictionary. It surely shows that they are entered there in that second source. You have not shown me that this term doesn't warrant its own article. Nothing can change my mind on this matter. And it seems your feelings are set on this matter as well, so I agree to disagree with you on this. Flyer22 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the title is Posh and Becks, but assuming that "Posh and Becks", not "David Beckham" and "Victoria Beckham" was put in (as the article implies) is unfounded, and to do so would be original research without the actual dictionary confirming it. Using the term does not making something notable. The second source proves (maybe) that the term "Posh and Becks" being about sex is notable, not it being about David and Victoria. So the article here would need to be about that. But I agree, we are stuck on this issue, and barring any other sources, will not have a change of opinion. i (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing original research that the term that was put into that dictionary was Posh and Becks and not David Beckham and Victoria Beckham. The second source even demonstrates as much. That second source, while showing that it has also come to mean sex, is the term Posh and Becks. It is about the couple, in that it was this couple that gave way to the term being referred to as whatever it is referred to as in English culture. It means more than one thing, but is a result of this couple's popularity. This article doesn't just address the term being about this couple, but other aspects of the term's popularity, and it can be expanded. Again, we don't agree, but everyone cannot agree on everything in deletion debates. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether or not the phrase is in a dictionary is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here that can't be covered in about one sentence in each of the individual's articles. "David Beckham married Victoria 'Posh Spice' Adams in 1999 and the couple is often referred to in the tabloid press by the nickname 'Posh and Becks'." Boom. Everything you need to know about the nickname. Otto4711 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Disagree. The term is not just about whether or not it was entered into the dictionary. It's about whether or not the term is notable, and it is. We say Wikipedia is not a dictionary, yet we have plenty of words on Wikipedia that can be found in dictionaries. This term actually encompasses a whole culture, this from just a celebrity couple name. It doesn't get more notable than that for a term. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for god's sake. Of course you disagree; your obsession with the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. The term does not "encompass a whole culture." That's just a ridiculous thing to say, and I note that the article's claim that it does is tagged as unsourced. It illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people, each of whom already have extensive articles on WIkipedia, and this article merely regurgitates information that is (or should be) already in their articles. Do we need "Posh and Becks" to inform us that they're married and bought a big house and are now in America? No. Otto4711 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny. I thought/think the exact same thing about you...except the other way around. Your obsession with deleting the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. And I see you still love to be uncivil, especially when a deletion debate isn't going your way. I have no obsession with popular culture, just because I don't believe that any of the supercouple articles should be deleted from Wikipedia...and I edit those articles, or just because a topic has a lot to do with popular culture that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. You base "my obsession" with popular culture on the fact that I disagree with you a great deal on supercouple articles, because that's mainly the only type of popular culture you've seen me in. Your assertion is false. As for Posh and Becks, it is not ridiculous to say that the term encompasses a whole culture. As for that being tagged as unsourced? It was only tagged during this deletion debate as unsourced. And I'm sure that it can be sourced, though I'm not sourcing it for you. You always say "it illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people", tabloid this, popular culture that, and I don't agree with you. The term is notable, therefore I see nothing wrong with it being on Wikipedia. That's just how it is. I mostly see your nominations of these types of articles as I don't like it. You know that we usually don't agree, and we aren't going to agree here. Flyer22 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a neologism (as stated in previous discussion, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001"). Certainly do not rename to "David and Victoria Beckham" or any other such construction, Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". That is "Posh and Becks". --Stormie 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Talentless airheads they may be but this term has been used about a billion times in the British press. Nick mallory 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NEO. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. The number of times the tabloid press of England uses the term is irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources that are about the term. Otto4711 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, as I have seen no evidence that the phrase "Posh and Becks" has any notability outside the notability of the INDIVIDUALS involved. Sonny and Cher were notable AS "Sonny and Cher", mainly because of their variety show. What have David Beckham and Posh Spice done AS A DUO that merits keeping this article? Wikipedia is not a pop culture dictionary. K. Scott Bailey 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The phrase is included in the 2001 Collins Concise English Dictionary. It is Cockney rhyming slang as well as being a widely used British phrase in its own right (see article references). Wikipedia should include notable popular culture encyclopedic entries. — Jonathan Bowen 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fixed. Maybe I should have worded that a bit differently. The existence of the joint biography establishes the couple as being notable as a couple, not just individually. That justifies having an article about them. To decide on the name of the article WP:MOSBIO#Names says the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. The book title is one piece of evidence that they are more commonly known as a couple as Posh and Becks rather than David and Victoria Beckham. Phil Bridger 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Heart

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

This article about a research project does not include the reliable sources that would show its notability. The jargon-laden tone could be written by someone who speaks Medical, but it's only worth the effort if this is indeed a notable project. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Cruz

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 12:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xudun

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

I found this while working on another AFD nomination on a Somali topic. The page's creator has been blocked twice, but still refuses to edit in English.

I'm not sure what or who or where Xudun is, but based on Google it looks like it's a town or settlement in the Somali state of Nugaal. A search at the Somali Wikipedia shows the word 'xudun' in only one page, which is titled 'Gadabursi traditional history' – I don't know what the page says, but it's there. It was listed at WP:PNT for three weeks, but apparently there's no one here who speaks Somali.

I bring it here per procedure at WP:PNT. I don't think it's going to get translated. KrakatoaKatie 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless in the very unlikely event of someone being able to translate it. They're too busy with perpetual civil war and extreme poverty there for translating things on Wikipedia, I guess... although someone of Somalian background resident in another country might know. It's not much information anyway.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy as housekeeping. Per GFDL the page histories need to be merged. Where the page ends up after a merge is a naming issue, and would require a page move, not a deletion.

Carlyle (Marvel Comics)

Carlyle (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is a copy of Luke Carlyle Printer222 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC). This article is the same however it is more apropriate to be in the "Luke Carlyle" section as this is the full name of the character and the article nominated has a title which is the last name of the character.[reply]

Move per Revolving Bugbear. Agreed. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushidokan Federation

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

Notability and a walled garden. Lots of high ranks mentioned again and again but all in orgnaizations founded by the (you guessed it) the founder. Google hits on different variations dont give up very much Peter Rehse 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. --Fang Aili talk 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Paritran

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

Possibly non-notable... you decide. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:09, 24 October 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 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've made a fast control, and it is talked of by another well known Indian paper, The Hindu[22]. The party has fielded candidates, and seems to have a national organization. Just by The Hindu, the party obtains mention in 43 articles, having obtained surprisingly good results in the Tamil Nadu elections in 2006. [23]--Aldux 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is quite notable. Plenty of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources are available. The article just needs some references. utcursch | talk 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (StarCraft)

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

This article is plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective, and has no reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional race outside of the computer game they are derived from. Gavin Collins 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as someone who is a strong supporter of SC and SC articles, I can say without bias that unless the Hybrid is central to StarCraft II, there will never be any hope for this article to be sourced or notable. The Clawed One 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Tangled Up. As article is already redirected, this is a non-admin closure. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Speak French

AfDs for this article:
Can't Speak French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Firstly, WP:V states "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Based on this statement alone, this article should not exist. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have not found any reliable sources that claim that this song is to be released. Therefore, if this article fails both WP:N and WP:V, it automatically fails WP:MUSIC, which it does, as this article doesn't meet this criteria. — *Hippi ippi 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Anton Golovaty. --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Holovaty

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

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by user:Caknuck as an attack page (CSD G10). Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bosworth

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

Seems to be a hoax... Neutralitytalk 06:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animoto

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 06:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime fandom in Britain

Anime fandom in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"This is one person's view of the timeline..." Neutralitytalk 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one seems to fall under original research as an essay or perhaps even a soapbox. Useight 06:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cleanup, cite and rename. "United Kingdom" would be preferable if this article was going to stay. Assuming it wasn't copied from somewhere - a couple selected quotes couldn't yield any search engine results, but that doesn't rule it out - it needs significant work and citations. Maybe someone can salvage it? I've not researched it to verify anything, it definitely could be useful though. Modla 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable original research. Someone's term paper... /Blaxthos 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cleanup per Modla. It could be an encyclopedic topic, but at the moment the article itself is unencyclopedic as appearing to have large amounts of WP:OR.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, and cite. As stated on the page, this was created for those involved in anime fandom in Britain to place their (verifiable) thoughts on. It has been in place for less than a month so it is perhaps premature to talk of "salvaging" or deleting it. Murphy's Lawyer 22:09, 6 November 2007 (GMT/Zulu)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Primary School

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

Non-notable school. No references to independant sources provided. No assertions of notability. It only avoids an A7 speedy by being exempted from speedies by being a school. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amruss

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

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Further details of this case should be discussed in WP:BIO. --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Kaepernick

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

The subject is a college football player who started his first game ten days before this article was created. While this game apparently received a fair deal of media attention, the notability of the subject is not supported by any reliable sources. Although I am not 100% clear on the policy for college atheletes, I did some digging around and found that notability at the college level seems to hinge on the individual being recognized by an organization or third party as a particularly notable player. I'll conceed that recognition may be in this young man's future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and a lack of notability here in the present means that this article should be deleted and only recreated when the subject attains true notability.

In the interest of disclosure, I would also like to note that I nominated this article for CSD, and the admin who rejected my request suggested either prod or AfD in his edit summary. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, college athlete, participating in one notable game doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. NawlinWiki 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BIO's criteria for athletes: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." It is generally accepted that in the U.S., playing for a college team qualifies as playing/competing at the highest level in amateur sports. Also, it is quite likely that there are secondary sources that can be used to cite the article, as he appears to be a key figure in a rather notable game. (A quick Google search seems to turn up quite a few, in fact.) LaMenta3 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article appears to establish sufficient notable and should be able to be expanded. Reliable sources appear to exist, even though they aren't currently cited. Karanacs 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hussain

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship, JMFI

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship, JMFI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzlina

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

Article describes a neologism surrounding the "The Emporer's [sic] New School" TV series. It refers to a YouTube user as "possibly originally" coining the term, with a link to the user's channel page. Neologism seems to be rather non-notable. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged it for speedy deletion on grounds of not asserting notability (db-nn). Michaelbusch 06:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G3. east.718 at 17:26, 11/3/2007

AfDs for this article:

Kelley t hood

Kelley t hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is not verifiable since it has no sources nor can sources be found. Seems to be a hoax. --Hdt83 Chat 05:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Family Values

True Family Values (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable concept within an organization. Article contains no references and appears to be copied and pasted. Sfacets 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect all. There is a clear consensus from this debate that the articles shouldn't exist. The delete arguments didn't show any adversity to being redirected, and hence I have redirected them all without deleting in case someone wants to use some of the content behind the redirects (can still be accessed in the article's history) in the main list. Daniel 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Mayfair

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

In-universe article (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional character. Subject hasn't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT. CrazyLegsKC 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating these other Desperate Housewives character articles:[reply]

Ian Hainsworth‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xiao-Mei‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Felicia Tilman‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noah Taylor (Desperate Housewives)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martha Huber‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gloria Hodge‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kayla Huntington‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Williams (Desperate Housewives)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Applewhite‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caleb Applewhite‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adam Mayfair‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ida Greenberg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Preston and Porter Scavo‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parker Scavo‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nora Huntington‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victor Lang‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Travers McLain‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phyllis Reynolds Van De Kamp‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alma Hodge‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Austin McCann (Desperate Housewives)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Justin (Desperate Housewives)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lee McDermott‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bob Hunter (Desperate Housewives)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My reasoning is pretty much the same as the thoughts I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misc Pushing Daisies articles. The show itself is undoubtedly notable, but none of these characters seem to have enough real-world context to be considered notable per WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Some of them, like Dylan, Adam, Bob, and Lee, were introduced just in the past couple weeks, also making them a WP:CRYSTAL issue, some of them are too minor to merit their own articles (such as Travers, Phyllis, Justin, Kayla, Parker, Porter & Preston, and Ida), and none of them really attempt to establish notability by presenting real-world context--probably because most of them don't really have any. We'd be better off, IMHO, without so many of these individual, in-universe articles, and with an improved single character list. Note that some of the other character articles may be worthy of deletion as well; I just nominated these for now because they're the ones I'm pretty sure of (I didn't nominate any of the "major" starring characters). --CrazyLegsKC 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though I am a pretty major fan of DH, I agree that some of these charcters should not have articles, because they have been basent from the show for a long time, had limited roles and will not come back, like Martha Huber, Xiao-Mei, the Applewhites, Travers McLain and Justin. There is a precedence for this: articles about Art Shephard and Carolyn Bigsby were redirected to the list of characters when these characters became unimportant. However, Victor Lang, Ida Greenberg, Kayla Huntington, Parker Scavo and Preston and Porter Scavo still have important roles so they should remain there as much as Andrew, Danielle, Paul Young and Zach Young, and some others that are not listed for deletion here. Some characters who won't come back also deserve articles because they had highly important roles in the plot: Gloria Hodge, Alma Hodge, George Williams (Desperate Housewives) and Noah Taylor (Desperate Housewives). Don't forget that there may still be people who watch the first seasons of DH for the first time so Wikipedia should provide them with information about these characters. I think that no articles should be bulk deleted before a serious discussion has been done to determine which articles to delete and which to keep. Canjth 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said in my nomination, I just nominated these for now because they're the ones that I'm most sure are worthy of deletion. I refrained from nominating any of the starring characters for now because they're more likely to have out-of-universe context, even if it hasn't been shown yet. (Such as from interviews, DVD commentaries, etc.) However, if context and notability is not demonstrated for those characters in the future--yes, they probably should be deleted/merged, in spite of being starring roles. Read WP:FICT—"notability" for fictional subjects means having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just playing an important part within the plot of the work itself. --CrazyLegsKC 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not wishing to resort to the Pokémon test, but we have worse than this on Wikipedia. No evidence that all these characters fail WP:FICT. Each case should be analyzed separately, a mass nomination is probably not adequate for them. Húsönd 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These characters may not be important now, but they were still there and you should keep them.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeDOM (programming)

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

This article is mostly a copy of http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/freedom.asp and is as far as I can tell wholly made up of original research about a non-notable invention of its author, CodeAdams. The article cites no reliable sources, and portions of it are written in the first person. (indeed, the "History" section proclaims: “The FreeDOM technique was invented by Adam Smith on September 28, 2007.”) Some of its content is potentially relevant to the article about Comet (programming). jacobolus (t) 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Dragon Cards

Legendary Dragon Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

the page is heavily in-universe and is a plot summary. Moreso, the cards it discusses do not exist in the real card game or the manga, and thus there is little hope to establish notability. The Clawed One 04:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly magill

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

Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Hades Empire Infershia

Underground Hades Empire Infershia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Again, this is all plot information (WP:PLOT) with no real world context. There are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Pilotbob 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot meet WP:NOT. I could not find coverage of this subject in any reliable secondary source so it does not meet WP:FICT. If this article is rewritten, it still will not policy guidelines. Since reliable secondary sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting can make a difference. Explain how this article can be revised without still violating WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. I have nominated these articles because I believe fixing them is impossible Pilotbob 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are secondary sources. I will find them tonight. There are also primary sources, as well. Just because you do not know how to fix them, does not mean that other people do not know, as well. I know that there are a lot of articles that need fixing, because people feel the need to put plot summary in fictional character biographies. Maybe if you sought out the sources in the other articles they referenced, you may be able to find suitable secondary sources, instead of automatically going "This article sucks because NOT, N, RS, etc. Let's delete it." Deletion is not a response to slightly perfect content. Its a response to content that has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. This is a list of characters in a notable television series. They are notable. Reliable sources can be found, and I will find them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: if this article is pruned of all OR and cruft it would be a small paragraph worth of material. that small paragraph maybe should exist within some other article here on wikipedia but i don't see it in the middle of all of the claptrap in that article. Law/Disorder 04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no original research. Its just not properly sourced and cited at the moment. This page could be really shortened, but other than that, I know its not perfect in its current state.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "N Ma was resurrected when Meemy transferred the Magirangers' Legend powers into him. The tendrils on his head each end with a dragon's head. When Wolzard turned back into Blagel, N Ma turned him back, but Kai broke his spell. N Ma was seemingly hindered by Blagel when he sacrificed himself to stop N Ma by sealing the demon's soul in his own body." Law/Disorder 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That tells you nothing about what could be sourced to off-site episode summary, off-site character biography, official site episode summary, or official site character biography. That sentence only tells you what happened in the television series (which is currently the content of the article). Not about the characters within the series itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This does tell you that the article creator simply translated it from Chinese into English without any cleanup effort. Pilotbob 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get Chinese from? Regardless, the article was created because its content was cluttering up its series page. This gave the unintentional result of making the article waaaaaaaaay too long. As I said, I'll be looking for sources and I'll be getting someone to cut out anything that is useless in the information.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. This fancruft is beyond clean up. --Gavin Collins 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I am not sure about this, but I agree with WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:V Greg Jones II 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete as it currently stands. no primary sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability as stated above. If this changes, I'll reconsider. --Fredrick day 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral due to changes to the article - will need to read it closely later. --Fredrick day 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Model High School, Khilgaon

Model High School, Khilgaon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn high school. nothing is established with sources. Law/Disorder 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing to weak delete after finding these sources: Bangledesh Football [27], New Age Sports at the Daily Newspaper [28] Daily Star [29] and The Independent[30] articles about their football/soccer team. Bearian 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters in Mahou Sentai Magiranger

Monsters in Mahou Sentai Magiranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list of monsters that are not notable outside of the fictional universe. There is no real world context. Remember WP:NOT#DIR, and that Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Additionally, there are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Also, this is plot information only (WP:PLOT) Pilotbob 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot meet WP:NOT. It has existed for almost a year and is still completely unsourced. I could not find coverage of this subject in any reliable secondary source so it does not meet WP:FICT. Additionally, it will never amount to anything but a guide to the fictional show (WP:NOT#GUIDE). If this article is rewritten, it still will not policy guidelines. Since reliable secondary sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting can make a difference. Explain how this article can be revised without still violating WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. I have nominated these articles because I believe fixing them is impossible Pilotbob 04:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On further review, this article is another one that I could see deleted and not affect its source article in any way. Merging would be pointless.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is just a summary of the minor creatures in the fictional universe with no real-world context or analysis. It's doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to fix that problem or to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, this article cannot be "fixed". Doctorfluffy 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the content is terrible, then it's sure to be changed sooner or later. -Harmil 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infershia Pantheon

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

This article fails WP:PLOT because it is all plot information, cannot be cited with secondary sources per WP:FICT, and has no real world context (nor could a real world context be established). Pilotbob 03:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Haemo 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magiranger spells

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

This list of fictional spells lacks any real world context, is not notable outside of the ficitonal universe, and cannot be cited with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT, also is plot information Pilotbob 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NOT#GUIDE Pilotbob 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete — the arguments for deletion here held that this article is not only unsourced, and thus fails notability guidelines, but that it cannot be sourced to reliable sources. Arguments for keep fail to address this in any substantial way — chiefly, by providing sources. Naturally, this is not prejudice to a properly sourced article being written on this subject. --Haemo 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AkaRed

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

This article regarding a fictional character shows no real world context, cannot be cited to meet the secondary sources requirement of WP:FICT, and the character is generally not notable outside of its own fictional universe Pilotbob 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia

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

a collection of facts with no actual sources to establish a connection. this is basically a trivia page and a violation of WP:OR to try to imply they are connected as a concept. Law/Disorder 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note there is no AfD tag on the article, you may wish to do so, otherwise this will be closed as out of process. As for the article, redirect it to Elysium, and if there's any sources discussing the phenomenon of using Elysia, we can add a line or to on that article. i (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, woops, ok then. Law/Disorder 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Haemo 01:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icrime

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

Contested prod. Dictionary definition of a non-existent word. The term does appear to be very occasionally used (albeit I can only find one use that isn't on either a blog or a forum post), but I really don't think this one's even worth transwikiing as I think it's unlikely Urban Dictionary would want this, let alone Wiktionary. A mess of unsourced claims, US-centricism, apparent original research and weasel words; our old friends "some people" and "others claim" both raise their heads. — iridescent 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Coredesat 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veropedia

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

Seems like a very new website, but the only independent sources on it seem to be blogs, which are not reliable sources. Since this is a Wikipedia-related topic, possibly move it to Wikipedia:Veropedia or just delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the references section seem to be to blogs, and the talk page is empty save templates, so I don't know what sources you mean. If you do know of some particular sources that covered it, would you provide links to them so they can be used in the article? Or are some of those blogs reliable? I admit that I am not familiar with them, and a brief look didn't indicate that they were. A clarification would be appreciated. --Sopoforic 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
800 words of coverage in the Toronto Star is more than significant, it's exclusive. This article now exceeds the basic notability criteria. VanTucky Talk 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my notes at the bottom of this debate. The question is, does it really satisfy the relevant notability guidelines? There's an exception to being notable which the article comes unnervingly close to being covered by, again as I've noted. Definitely an ambiguous one... Anthøny 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That point is now somewhat moot, given the publication of the Wired News article today[32] - Alison ❤ 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the press coverage and there's really no point in deleting something that would be recreated in future. Notability is only a guideline and given the drama a deletion here would cause, it's absolutely not worth deleting. Nick 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per VanTucky. Omigod, a bunch of Wikipedia articles you can't nominate for deletion. Can they DO that? Mandsford 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep for now The Slashdot coverage is one non-trivial reliable source and Veropedia already has criticism from notable web 2.0 critic Nicholas Carr so this technically just fails beneath notability. There will almost certainly be additional sources in the very near future so we might as well wait a week or two to see if that in fact occurs and delete if it ends up being a dud (disclaimer: I helped write much of the current article). JoshuaZ 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Changing my opinion to simple keep given the Toronto Star coverage and the upcoming Wired coverage. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For better or for worse, Wikipedia tends to have a much lower threshold for inclusion as concerns itself. See Category:Wikipedia. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? My impression has generally been the exact opposite. It took forever until we even had an article on Jimbo Wales and one major objection to the Essjay controversy article seemed to do with it being related to Wikipedia. Similarly, some people wanted Daniel Brandt deleted solely because of the Wikipedia connection even though he was notable in other respects. There might be one or two in that category that shouldn't their own articles (such as Wapedia) but by and large the problem goes in the other direction. JoshuaZ 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at some of those categories underneath Category:Wikipedia like Category:Wikipedias by language, Category:History of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia people. Also, Jimbo's article page was created in 2003, but reverted at his request. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, so? There are more than enough sources for each of the invidual major Wikipedias (albeity with the excepetion of .de and a few others they are only in the original languages). So those are all fine. Of the History set I don't see anything that's problematic by itself aside possibly from Morton Brilliant and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China(a notable topic with a few ok sources the main issue here is that most of the included details are original research). Of people, there are only a handful and some of the people such as Mike Godwin would be notable even without their Wikipedia connections. Of the people the only one I see of questionable notability are Alison Wheeler(meets notability barely), Tim Shell (doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, should probably be AfDed), Joshua Gardner (might be notable, arguably falls under NOT NEWS).Alan Mcilwraith(same issue possibly as Gardner) and all the others are fine. So we have overall one that should be AfDed, a handful of borderlines and the majority as being ok. I don't see much evidence of there being being a lower bar for Wikipedia related topics. JoshuaZ 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying that they're problematic, or that they have no sources. Quite the contrary -- I think they're fine. However, Wikipedians seem to have a skewed view of Wikipedia-related people and events. This doesn't actually bother me ... I have some problems with WP:N anyway, as much as I realize that it's a necessary evil. And a lot of those articles, which are now deemed notable, were created before the issues in them were noteworthy. Take a look at the page histories. Like I said, this doesn't bother me at all, I'm just pointing it out. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice against recreation when WP:NOT#NEWS surpassed) - Per JLL will surely be recreated at some time. Much as I like veropedia, the core question is, do we have reliable verifiable sources that Veropedia has gained significant recognition to meet WP:N and WP:NOT as it stands, and at this point in time.
  1. Non-blog media attention is minimal, and essentially comprises republications that mirror the slashdot story, and based on the same two sources slashdot itself gives - its developer's blog and veropedia's own self-publication.
  2. The number of blog posts from Google suggest that following the slashdot post, Veropedia has achieved some mention, but that its mentions are 1/ as social gossip or a "coming soon" interest, rather than 2/ as a notable encyclopedia (eg: a site that readers are told is notable by sources discussing reference websites).
  3. The publications are mostly republication of self-published material provided by Veropedia and its developers, with brief comment (plus one criticism by a party open to concerns that he might focus on anything Wikipedia-related whether notable or not).
    • Veropedia as an reference site: - There is no evidence that as a reference site any independent credible reliable source has yet taken significant note of veropedia.
    • Veropedia as a social buzz, concept, meme or potential future 'watch this spot': - Ideas and concepts do merit articles, but the blogosphere includes many of these so (WP:NOT, WP:N) a degree of exceptionality or a basis to pick this one out as notable, is needed, to meet the criteria "not an indiscriminate collection of information".
  4. There does not yet seem to be significant (or any real) analysis and opinion, by reliable sources on reference sites, as said, the mentions seem to be mostly limited to republications of self-published material. There are no obvious secondary sources upon which to base more than a self-description. So it is hard to provide coverage on veropedia as a subject - there are no (or very few) sources of comment and analysis.
  5. Finally, considering WP:CRYSTAL whilst veropedia has traction, suppose all all the mentions it ever got, were those it has now, would there be enough to say it had achieved "notability"?
We have at least one reliable source (and republications), plus evidence of a significant amount of transient social gossip. But in fact, WP:NOT#NEWS sets an additional bar over that, that a brief media mention is not enough. Although I started writing this as "keep/weak keep", I feel on reflection and source checking, that at present veropedia is still within the territory of "brief mention in the news"; there is just the one source mention that's pushed these republications. Even though there is public mention and some blogosphere buzz, that for me is the decider. That may change in a week, or a few months, or never. It may even change during this AFD. But it's not to be anticipated that it will. Delete for now, until such time as this status quo has changed. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my remark bellow about what CRYSTAL actually says. CRYSTAL applies primarily to future events where the content is speculative. That's not an issue here. Similarly NOT NEWS is to deal with one-offs such as murders, car-crashes, minor elections, scandals, publicity stunts etc, not the existence of a website which continues to exist The most relevant detail is WP:WEB which this meets given the Slashdot and Toronto Star coverage. The fact that Wired is going to do a piece just makes it even more so. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's not an issue here. Much of the "keep" view posting is based on editors' impressions what vero might or will be, or what kind of coverage might or will emerge but hasn't done so sufficiently yet. That is classic WP:CRYSTAL. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what exactly you see as not "common sense". Is there ongoing or independent significant coverage beyond slashdot and its ripples at present? At present, Veropedia has had one significant mention - a republication of its self published self descriptions on a major IT news+discussion website. These were picked up by slashdot and mirrored in many blogs and a couple of sites. There is no apparent coverage beyond that now.
WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly intended to discriminate against matters which receive brief transient coverage in reliable sources (eg see the expression "considers historical notability") - Veropedia's coverage now (WP:CRYSTAL) is one repub of its own self-description, in a slashdot page (plus blogs and such that have reprinted the same self-pub sources), and at this time is brief and transient and no significant wider coverage has been cited to suggest that at this time that is not the case. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Possible - No way! Just because it can't keep up with Wikipedia's enormous size doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is a great up-and-coming website that should have a great article to it. I can't believe you even thought of deleting this.   jj137 (Talk) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? Has anyone mentioned Veropedia's size in this discussion at all. The concern is a failure to meet our website notability guidelines. Whether a website is "great" has nothing to do with whether or not it should have a Wikipedia article, and we don't write articles about things simply because proponents claim they are "up-and-coming". JoshuaZ 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes. But have you ever even been to the website? Sorry, but if you really think wikipedia is perfectly reliable, sadly you're wrong. Wikipedia even admits it. This site has taken thousands of wikipedia articles and checked, rechecked, and rechecked again and again to make sure they are perfectly reliable. Within a few years this site is basically going to be a perfectly reliable wikipedia. We could at least do it a little honor by fixing it up some and giving it its own article. Sorry if I offended anyone or "offended wikipedia", but there are lots of people out there who don't trust wikipedia because anyone can change it to say anything. Sadly this site is trying to take wikipedia's articles and make them so that everyone can "trust them". Thanks   jj137 (Talk) 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the essential point. We don't write articles because the subjects have an ideology or lofty goal that we agree with or not. The concerns here are whether the article meets our notability guidelines for websites and whether this runs afoul of various issues discussed in WP:NOT. No one here is claiming that Wikipedia is reliable, nor is anyone saying that Veropedia is a bad idea. The issue is whether we really have enough material to write a worthwhile article about it. (And incidentally, I don't think that "Strongest Keep Possible" is going to have much of a different result than "Strong Keep" especially given that admins generally treat "Strong Keep" pretty close to "keep" anyways and aren't very fond of calls for keeping based on ILIKEIT) JoshuaZ 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I realize that. I'll try to summarize what I'm trying to say in a sentence (or half-sentence): per Jeffrey below. Sufficient press coverage. Sorry, I guess it was kind of hard to get my point across.   jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, but note my COI here. It's quite new but is ramping up at a fast rate and its visibility is on the increase. Delete now, by all means, but it will just end up being recreated soon anyway - Alison ❤ 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think we can reasonably expect more reliable sources to be appearing" ... This is not useful at AFD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - that's not an issue here. CRYSTAL is to rule out things like Rocky 7 or movies that exist only in speculation from directors. There's no CRYSTAL issue here. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, disagree. To recap, much of the "keep" view in this AFD is predicated upon editors' impressions what vero might or will be, or what kind of coverage might or will emerge but hasn't done so sufficiently yet (plus web coverage that would be considered too small to attest to "being notable" on almost any other AFD of a beta website). That is classic WP:CRYSTAL. One way to look at this neutrally is to ask, right now, if Veropedia did nothing more than it has done so far, if it remained a beta website with 4000 Wikipedia articles, a slashdot post and a under 5 or 6 media mentions of the concept, and nothing beyond that, would the "keep" arguments still stack up? Would we keep an article on John Doe's attempt to start an unconnected encyclopedia fork from Wikipedia, based on 4000 articles and a handful of transient mentions? That is the reason WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are applicable. The "unverified speculation" is that Veropedia will be notable as a reference site. It isn't yet, though I'm sure it will be. That again is WP:CRYSTAL. For every site that is notable, a hundred garner some brief media mention and enthusiasm. Brief mention and a promise of future profile means little. So we apply the same standard to Veropedia as to all other new announcements, we don't cut corners for it. Given the connection to Wikipedia, it's probably (especially?) a good idea to be (if anything) more diligent than usual. We can always recreate when appropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i mean, don't you people have any shame? Law/Disorder 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing all your toys out of the pram because you're not getting your own way is funny, but ultimately completely unhelpful. Please just let the discussion run it's course without making personal attacks on everybody who has expressed an opinion here. Nick 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the editor is merely profressing frustration at the ability of several admins to game the Wikipedia process in order to pimp a site they're involved with? --Bogwoppit 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more what WP:RS would require, but still the concern that there is no evidence that it has more than transient news interest persists. At this point WP:NOT and WP:N, the basic inclusion criteria, still seem to be quite far from met. "Beta project of a new concept website roll-out with limited commentary or note" (which is all we have really) is not really enough to support an article yet. As said, sometime, it will have one, I'm sure. But that time is not now. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yielding to the opinion of Seth Finkelstein, and many others, herein. 1.) Songgarden 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Nick and Alison...--Cometstyles 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without future prejudice. Getting slashdotted does not make something notable. The Toronto Star article makes me sit up and pay attention a bit more, but I'm still not convinced this meets wp:n. Delete for now. If this really does take off, we'll start to see more mention in the traditional press outlets. It's easy to recreate the article later if that happens, and Wikipedia won't be any worse for having missed jumping on the bandwagon for a few more months. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to cover breaking news. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Declaration - I am a Vero contributor. Notability is really marginal at the moment, and to be honest the article is by necessity quite sketchy; if it was not a Wikipedia-linked project I don't think it would have an article. If it is deleted, it can quite easily be re-created when Vero becomes more notable. ELIMINATORJR 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a usual concern at AFD. if needed though the page could be moved to user space, so the history is kept, the #redirect deleted or changed, and then when it's time, moved back and improved. That's probably the better way to do it. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Citizendium clearly has more press coverage (although it does look like citations to Larry are about 3/4s of the citations in that article). JoshuaZ 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And not necessarily just the article, in their case. Have they picked a licence yet ? Nick 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay on topic, shall we? VanTucky Talk 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww. And they still haven't settled on a licence. Nick 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's because it is a post-office box used by Danny. It has already been pointed out that this doesn't look so good. JoshuaZ 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it mentions different boxes (#358 for the Foundation, and #354 for Veropedia). Heaven forbid two people who live in the same town to use the same post office! Oh heavens, the scandal! ^demon[omg plz] 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (web) states that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.... An article on Veropedia was published in this article in the Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper. Having said that, that newspaper article comes dangerously close to being covered by one exception to being notable under WP:WEB: "Trivial coverage, such as: ... a brief summary of the nature of the content". This is a tough one, and the fact that its made up of a circle of long-standing Wikipedians shouldn't affect whether or not it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. In this instance, I'm erring towards accepting it, for now, but I'd like to see lots more sources. Anthøny 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Just barely passes WP:WEB. ffm 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I admit my Conflict of Interest (being a developer and contributor), I still believe this passes the burden of notability. Sources exist, and even more are certainly forthcoming. Mzoli's seems to come to mind. ^demon[omg plz] 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment We have another yet another reliable source on the topic although it is a local newspaper. JoshuaZ 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the new sources are helpful and appreciated, but I still find myself saying that if the project were to fall apart tomorrow and no further work was ever done on it then it would fail WP:N. I am hopeful that it will succeed--it's a great idea for a web site--but these are brief articles about the idea for the web site more than on the actual web site itself and so I think the site itself fails to be notable now. (What content does it really have?) I continue to say (weak) delete and recreate when it's live and used (or otherwise notable). Perhaps redirect to Wikipedia (is there a Wikipedia clones or Wikipedia spin-offs article yet?) and make a passing mention there. JJL 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More coverage of Veropedia:
Btw, is Veropedia really a rival? Isn't it a partner/colleague encyclopedia? Aec·is·away talk 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 2: The Series

High School Musical 2: The Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a series of YouTube videos which apparently have been deleted from YouTube, but as far as I can tell, they were fan-created videos consisting of still photos of characters from High School Musical 2 with the dialogue supplied as text over the photos. Contrary to the implications of the article, these videos were not professional productions with the actual cast of the TV movie. This "series" is just non-notable web content. This article had previously been submitted for WP:PROD and deleted, but was later re-created. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 20:40, 11/15/2007

University of Dreams

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

This is basically an advertisement for an internship program. It doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Robbie098 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep suspect WP:COI and some advertising issues, but there does seem to be something there nonetheless. Borderline at best. JJL 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It does look like an advert, but it has potential to be made into an article, and appears to be sufficiently notable. - Snigbrook 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I tried a rewrite to address concerns here. WP:CORP doesn't really seem to be satisfied. Independent mention of the company is pretty fleeting, nothing is an in-depth look at UOD. Press reports are (fairly poor) pieces on the new phenomenon of paying to get an internship. And the Inc. 5000 listing is hardly a rigorous ranking. The company does exist and this seems to be a growing field so there's a very weak argument to keep but I'm not convinced and given the apparent COI issues it will likely require editor attention just to keep it from becoming an advert again. Let's write the article when the company actually meets WP:CORP and there is something to say about them.-- SiobhanHansa 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep non admin closure. Davewild 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Chiarelli

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

lacks notibility and importance. Former Canadian politician with little influence

User:Fishcometsarecool Nov. 3, 3:15 AM UTC

The Super Speediest Keep as possible. This has been the mayor of a major Canadian city. Mayors of big cities or automatically notable. I'm concern that this either a bad faith nomination or a single purpose account.--JForget 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment Oh and by the way: There are 214 000 Google Hits and was a provincial member of the Ontario Legislature which is an express pass of WP:BIO as provincial politicians are notable. See here for proof that Chiarelli is a former provincial MPP [36]--JForget 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol! Keep, obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT, with slight merges where appropriate. I do not think this debate provides a 'rough consensus' for the outright deletion of either batch of articles. I don't really understand why someone should want to present a non-existent red link for any of these, to be completely honest. However, there is a pretty clear sway toward the opinion that they should not standalone as they do at present. It is indisputable that the articles by and large are excessively over-detailed for an encyclopedia and belong on the Wikia from whence they largely came. I'm therefore going to:

  1. REDIRECT the character articles to List of characters in Pushing Daisies.
  2. REDIRECT the episode articles to List of Pushing Daisies episodes.

I recognise that the nominator attempted this before; I hope this AfD provides a community mandate to have those redirects stick. Bear in mind that the material is accessible to those who would merge from the articles' histories, but that injudiciously doing so is likely to be seen as counter to the outcome of this AfD. -Splash - tk 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Pushing Daisies articles

(View AfD)

Character articles
Digby (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Narrator (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ned (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olive Snook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lily Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vivian Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emerson Cod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Episode articles
Girth (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pigeon (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Fun in Funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dummy (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bitches (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deletion rationale

This is an AfD for a small collection of character and episode articles for the TV show Pushing Daisies.

None of these articles contain enough real-world information to warrant their creation, and their creation is rather recent (about one month for the character articles, less for the episode articles). Per WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#PLOT, I redirected the articles till a time where they are able to contain enough real-world information. Since I have been reverted, and more than once, it seems this has become an issue, and I'm bringing these articles to AfD. Normally I wouldn't bring such articles to an AfD, usually because they're older and have had a lot more work done on them. This is different, possibly a chance to nip a potential problem in the bud, before it becomes a mass of articles, and before a lot more editors lose their contributions, and their time.

I have left the first episode article, Pie-lette, out of this AfD, since first episode articles have shown a reasonable potential for real world information in the past, and the article does have a reception section. Since I think it is likely that some of the main character articles will some day receive enough real-world information, I consider my position on them to be a weak delete. If kept, they definitely need some excessive stuff trimmed from them (such as this list). And we certainly don't need an entire article for the narrator.

I'm all for growing this information on Wikipedia, but we can't let these situations continue to spiral out of control. At the very least, we need to be starting at a list level, such as List of characters in Pushing Daisies (which in itself needs a trim for the very minor characters). -- Ned Scott 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • Trim down, merge, and redirect as plausible search terms/wikilinks to either List of Pushing Daisies episodes (for the episodes) or List of characters in Pushing Daisies (for the characters). -- saberwyn 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a very bad tendency to quickly create unmerited articles on every detail of fictional subjects (especially television characters), and this is a good example. (For more examples, look at Template:Desperate Housewives and read some of the many character articles listed there.) Very few fictional characters, IMO, have enough real-universe context to merit their own articles (per WP:WAF), and they probably won't until at least a few decades have passed and they've found a permanent, iconic place in culture (like Mickey Mouse). As such, most of these articles become little more than fancrufty, in-universe "biographies", which is exactly what WP:WAF says they shouldn't be. As for the episodes, I'm kind of more neutral on them than the characters, but more inclined to delete. As you point out, episode articles also need real-world context, and most of them probably don't have enough. This is Wikipedia, not TV IV, so it's not necessary to create an article on every episode of every show, which we also have a tendency to do. If I had my way, any given TV show would have just two articles: one about the show itself, and one listing the episodes--and I could even do without the latter. --CrazyLegsKC 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most but spare episodes - Unlike the person above, I feel lists of episodes and articles on episodes themselves to be quite informative and necessary. At this stage however, the character articles are not needed, though I would be favorable towards their recreation a couple of series down the line (should this show ever get that far). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex Machina (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Trim/merge) and redirect all to their respective list. A TV show with (at the moment) just five episodes would have major problems to establish the notability of its episodes and its characters, and this show is no exception. – sgeureka t•c 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as they are all plot summaries, with no claim to notability per nom. --Gavin Collins 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Episodes Most shows of some notability have episodes listed as separate articles on Wikipedia; considering the was Pushing Daisies has been recieved so far, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be created already. As to the character pages, I admit that I like having them myself, but I'm going to give that a no vote because they seem unnecessary at this point. (I'll try and refine this argument later on; I'm tired at the moment. I apologize for any incoherency in this.) VZG 10:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters, in keeping with common (although controversial) practice with most TV shows on wikipedia. The fact is that wikipedia has become a commonly visited source for reliable episode and character guides, including links to further information. In some cases, such as Arrested Development, the episode and character articles are among the best available information on these subjects on the net. Heroes has an extremely detailed set of character and episode articles whose appropriateness have been unquestioned and even hotly debated on certain points of content, and that was the case very shortly after its debut. In fact, that show has an entire WikiProject devoted to it. Considering the critical praise that "Pushing Daisies" has received and its status as the most significant new show of the current season, I find the patent deletion of all of these articles (especially the episode ones, but the character ones as well) to be unjustified and wildly inconsistent with the most common practice on wikipedia in this medium and area. I agree that all of them need to be rewritten and better cited for quality. As time goes on, shows obtain their own wikias, which can take the place of wikipedia articles, but the fact is that wikipedia has become a trusted source for information on television series, including characters and episodes, whether the puritans like it or not. -- MahlerFan 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common practice is not always a good indication of how things should be done, nor does the popularity of a show indicate how things should be done. The rationale here is that excessive plot summary needs real world information. Given how easy it is for fictional articles to get out of control (in raw numbers), we are less likely to keep the plot summary around "just in case" there's real world information if we don't have a good reason to believe it exists. Especially with new articles such as these, since the time invested in them is much less than many other articles (as in, we do tend to be a little bit more forgiving of the article that have been here a long while, but we are quick to put out small fires). -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Them Alone These various articles are starting points to make Pushing Daisies have a great and interactive page. The characters have already established personalities that have enough substance to create pages. As for the episodes, they've already aired, they're not going to have any new information the second time you watch them, why not have them now, instead of later. I come on here to see what happned on the last episode I missed, why should I have to wait 6 months to read about an episode that aired 8 months ago! And don't tell me two sentences can fit a complete description and meaning of an episode in the list of pushing daisies episodes page. All you'd be doing is taking away a great page and just putting off your "problems" for later. - theonlyone1234
  • You are right, we are removing great and useful plot summary, but Wikipedia is not the place for excessive plot summary without real-world information. A lot of game-guides, travel-guides, and how-to manuals have been deleted or moved off of Wikipedia, even though they were useful and of great quality. This is because Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria (while vague for many topics), so that the main content of Wikipedia is encyclopedic and grounded in the real-world. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should only be an article about an episode if there is "real-world context and sourced analysis" to talk about. This show already has its own wiki and is the featured show at TV IV, so any information can be retained there. --Phirazo 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not verbatim perhaps, but if an individual contributor wants to write plot summaries and character biographies, TV IV is a good outlet for it. Besides, if it is all from one person, they retain the right to license text under both the GFDL and Creative Commons. --Phirazo 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all so it will be easier in the future for someone who wants to re-write them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not a reliable source among them. They can't prove individual notability. Axem Titanium 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters per User:MahlerFan. I'm a "[taking] all knowledge to be my province" kind of guy. --mordicai. 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already a way to deal with episode articles, but I'm sure Ned knows that. At any rate, delete all of them because there is nothing needed in the history to merge that cannot be remembered. i (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The episode articles are pure plot, and need to be deleted (as opposed to merging) to reinforce the fact that articles like this need reliable, independent, secondary sources. The regular method of dealing with non-notable TV episodes seems to have failed here, so AfD is the only solution. If the only "source" is the show itself, there should not be an article about it (see WP:FICT). Same with the character articles, which have a "biography" pulled directly from the show. Wikipedia articles should not take the place of actually watching the show, and that is all these articles do. --Phirazo 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all - One character list, one episode list. If at some point in future encyclopedic treatment requires that one or another character or episode be spun off into a separate article, then do it. For now none of this is necessary. Otto4711 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned above, there is a Pushing Daisies wiki on Wikia, Wikia:Pushingdaisies. The main author of the articles is the same user on the PD Wiki, (1, 2) so both Wikipedia's and PD Wiki's copies appear to be GFDL compliant. It's also one of the better external wikis that I've seen. I'm sure that some of this will have a home here on Wikipedia, but it's also good to know that this information does have a home, and it won't be lost. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom's rationale; then create redirects as was previously done. These are non-notable and the characters and episodes are better covered in a list format. They also seem to be well covered at wikia, so interested editors should work there. --Jack Merridew 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I'm actually a big fan of this show, but stuff like this violates WP:WAP, WP:Plot, And WP:N. It really is starting to bother me that every little piece of current pop culture is turning into ti's own little wiki on here. Seriosly 5 years from now no one is going to care about any of this crap. Even characters with long histories suffere form this. Look at some of the comic book articles. Every storyline from the past 3 years covered in minor detail, while the rest of history is ignored. Ridernyc 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on that, not really related to overall discussion: For comic books, that may be (in part) because a lot of the old history is being wiped clean. It can be hard to tell what is and what isn't canon for a character now. VZG 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If those guidelines were always followed, I don't think Wikipedia could thrive. If articles were deleted without any regard to precedent and hard work, and came down to opinion about whether the people involved in the AFD disregarded whether they were harmless or useful (such findings can only be opinion). Why would someone nominate an article for deletion based on it having a long plot synopsis, instead of trim the plot? Why does notability on a TV show that 8-10 million people watch a week have to be established by whether Time magazine will talk about it, so we can source them? The episodes of a television show ought to be the only thing you need to reference re: information about them, because that's largely all there is to say about them. If you can bring it into the real world more, great, but how are you going to do that when the article's been deleted, unless you've got the time and interest to write something that's been written and deleted before. How many good creative editors have been driven away by the rules-driven editors? Wikipedia couldn't work without both of them, and I think it's bad faith for one type to screw the other like this. Give it time, your concerns will be addressed as the articles are built upon. Don't be destructive. -- AvatarMN 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to what Shoy just said, it's also important to remember that we want sources so we have real-world information. You simply don't have real-world information from the episode itself, so you wouldn't be able to use the episode as a source for what we are asking. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy can be very contradictive (not to mention that Wikipedia as it exists can be very misleading about policy). One of the pillars is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I think this rule can be interpereted to end all deletionism unless an article is doing harm, or something. There can be no question in the mind of anyone interested in Pushing Dasies and many television fans that these articles improve Wikipedia. And the rules fans ought to understand that an article that's a month old has a decent chance of being brought in line with the precious rules if they just butt out. I don't understand the appeal of being a destructive killjoy, and quoting guidelines to support yourself. Especially if an admin will undo an article deletion because someone wants to work on it... if that happens, then why would you want to delete an article? Leave it, and it'll get worked on. Delete it, and... it could still be worked on. Why bother, then? -- AvatarMN 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you missed the part where we pointed out that these articles were actually created on an external wiki, and will continue to exist there. Regardless of how much value you or I feel these articles have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. Wikipedia is not a fansite. And no, IARs does not apply here simply because you want it to. IARs exists for those unexpected times, when we didn't anticipate a certain scenario or other things to that extent. This is not something we just threw together guessed about, these are situations that are highly problematic, and they do not tend to get better with time.
  • The reason these things are policy and guidelines is because they have consensus support, and they follow Foundation policies about sources and original research. We have good reasons for this, none of which are about hating or liking shows. Most of us who support the fictional guidelines are huge fans of fiction, which is how we got involved in the first place. We don't do it because it's appealing, we do it because it keeps the far more important topics about fiction focused, instead of being lost in a sea of plot summary.
  • If you want to know what happens in a show, then you need to watch the show. If you want to know the story behind the show, the story of the production and the cast and crew, or how the world responded and interacted with the show, come to Wikipedia. We'll still give the basic plot summary, and sometimes a little bit more when it's unique or complex, but without real world information, we avoid the extreme details. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's on an external wiki doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, or my arguments. And WP:IAR doesn't mean what you said it meant, just because you want it to. It says "if it improves Wikipedia", and anyone who wants to read these articles will find it an improvement for them to be there over them not being there. Anyone who doesn't want to, can not read them. These articles don't have any effect on the focus of other articles. And if the fact that these types of articles exist, and will always be created, and re-created isn't consensus on the suitability of their existence, I don't know what is. -- AvatarMN 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Somewhat early in the day to be splitting the series article off into sub-articles, given the lack of real world info and dubious notability of the characters (a dog???). This isn't a fan Wiki. --Turnipface 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep/withdrawn nomination, didn't realize that this was actually a locality and not just a shopping center. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Cross Keys

Village of Cross Keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping region in Maryland, fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that there is an established precedent for inclusion of lesser known locations, be it a school, development, etc. Joshdboz 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I originally created this stub to be not about the shopping area itself, but about the entire neighborhood, which also includes apartments, condos, and other features in a typical neighborhood. I only made it a stub - I was hoping for others to expand. Articles about neighborhoods are perfectly within Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. This neighborhood, I know, does have some notable residents, such as well-known local journalists, though I have not mentioned that yet. Sebwite 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as out-of-process "nomination". There's no AfD tag on the article, no AfD discussion page has been created, and no reason for deletion is given. Someone has apparently just added an old AfD page (never properly closed?) to today's log. Non-admin closure. Deor 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alesana

patent nonsense, NN, etc. obvious speedy. Joeyramoney 00:36, 19 July 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth-Century Pioneers in Classroom Discipline

Twentieth-Century Pioneers in Classroom Discipline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a subjective list of educators and is based on original research. There are no third party reliable sources to confirm any of this. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — while the passion of its fans are noted, most do not provide any policy based reasoning for keeping this article. More importantly, they do not clearly address or refute the notability concerns of those arguing for deletion. Since this is not a vote, and the fact that other stuff exists is not germane to the notability of this article, the conclusion I must draw is delete. Naturally, there is not prejudice attached to a well-sourced article that clearly demonstrates notability in this deletion. --Haemo 01:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters

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

Non-notable fan movie. Article was deleted once, prior to its release. No reliable sources cited. Caknuck 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hank Braxtan is a up and coming Film maker and works for Mandt Brothers in L.A. as a Director. He has to his credit the following commercial made for TV shows.. Destination: Truth. Dave Johnson of DaveFilms Digital Media producer of fine audio books.DaveFilms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefilms (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you nominate this for deletion? Wikipedia has tons of entries of Star Wars fanfilms like Star Wars: Revelations that was a SHORT film, this is a FEATURE LENGTH FANFILM. It has had a Premiere at the Mayan Theater in Denver, CO aswell as a screening at Mile High Con and has bookings at Big Apple Con as well as a screening set up at a British Convention. Freddy vs Ghostbuster, the precursor to this film, was a hit all over the internet being heavily promoted by Bloody-Disgusting.com, listings on IMDB Here aswell as hostings on TheForce.net Here. Surely this film deserves this page. --BojacRedleif 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for an article to be kept. shoy (words words) 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything past the Revelations part? IT HAS SCREENINGS AT Mile High Con & Big Apple Con. They've booked a showing in London in May! Freaking Arrow-In-The-Head has a article about it Here. --BojacRedleif 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself on the original AfDs "I don't believe a Freddy vs Ghostbusters page was ever made. Although it was definetly notable as it was all over the place, it went so far to be British media. (They called them Canadian Youngsters), Bloody-Disgusting.com even said something around "If you ever took the time to download something, this should be it". It won best film at the MicrocinemaFest in South Dakota. It's also on IMDB and if IMDB actually adds a page for it then it's definetly noteworthy."

The film is finally released for FREE on the internet, it did get made. (As it was questioned the previous time) It was featured in the most recent edition of the Denver Metropolitan Magazine. Sources are Cited by reliable 3rd party sites (Metropolitan & Arrow-In-The-Head) now, it surely doesn't fit the guidelines of a swift deletion now. --BojacRedleif 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETEDevil MasterThis is feature-length and had screenings in movie theaters, it is notable.

Devil Master 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep*/No consensus to delete--JForget 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo wings

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

Dicdef, neologism and original research. Basically, it's a slang term for a type of pannus. It has had some cultural references, but that's about it. Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Two of the sources I found don't just use the term - this condition is the focus of their coverage. I can't imagine what more is needed to demonstrate notability. Since this is a British usage, perhaps you are not a good judge of the matter. Colonel Warden 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least the BBC source is about the term, but the BBC's full coverage amounts to: "Bingo wings is the name given to skin hanging down from people's arms as they raise their hands in victory at bingo", in other words, it's trivial coverage. Crazysuit 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not just a novel phrase; it's also a running joke in the referenced shows. And it's a medical/cosmetic condition which is of great interest to millions of women. The article on pannus does not address the topic adequately and that word was unknown to me until now. We might compare with man boobs in which the medical aspects are better developed but the social aspects are still rudimentary. A redirect like that might work but outright deletion is not appropriate. As usual, AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Common term and should be represented. KingStrato 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Catch phrases or words that gained popularity through popular culture outlets (in this case a British TV program) are certainly worthy of an article. The Wiktionary entry doesn't negate its being notable, and it does not do an adequet job explaining the rise in popularity of the term. There are plenty of examples of catch phrases or slang terms that not only make it on to Wikipedia, but also more traditional encyclopedias, because they do more than just define the word, but describe how it came about. More importantly this term has verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources. Jacksinterweb 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are reliable, but they aren't significant coverage. One sentence in a BBC news article isn't non-trivial coverage, which is required to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Crazysuit 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. For example, it appears in Chambers Dictionary. Kingturtle 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-in coffee shop

Drive-in coffee shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The article is about the concept of adding a drive-thru to a cannabis coffee shop, something that was proposed but has not been done. Torc2 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Rudget Contributions 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senator On-Line

Senator On-Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable startup party, a quick look around locates no independent references verifying anything other than its existence. Orderinchaos 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't say to "keep" articles because they might accomplish something notable. If the party wins seats, then a new article can be created. For now, I don't see how this article meets the criteria in WP:N. It should be deleted unless it does. Cogswobbletalk 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any registered political party running candidates in a federal election is notable in my book. Verifiable at [40] —Moondyne 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NOT#NEWS. An organisation that has been in existence for a few weeks with 500 members doesn't make it notable. The local RSL clubs in my area have more members than this. If this was a school, it would have been speedy deleted. Assize 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Becasue it is an actual political party that is running candidates in the Australian elections andtherefore there must be an article about this political party. CatonB 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have added a couple of references to the article. Party appears to have enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable enough as will most parties who contest national elections. Davewild 09:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This party has received extensive media coverage and I have listed some of it in the article. Besides which I think any party with candidates in the election is notable. Me...™ 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coming Evil

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

Self-published with no coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:The Coming Evil. Flex (talk/contribs) 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and Freedom

Faith and Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-published with no coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:Faith and Freedom Flex (talk/contribs) 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment:Author went to the country of Mongolia (not to a province of China) and became CEO of one of the most popular TV stations there (which would be notable enough for its own article). I won't weep about the book, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because someone happens to live in a remote country. --Latebird 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Strange Man

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

Self-published and does not have any coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:The Strange Man. Flex (talk/contribs) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. GDonato (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellipool Network Monitor

Intellipool Network Monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable; see Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor for details. A. B. (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) See below. --A. B. (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an axe to grind -- if someone does show this is notable, I'm happy to keep. --A. B. (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Apparently insufficient sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 06:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search for "intellipool" shows up 77.600 hits on google. If there is a problem with the article from an editoral point of view I can understand that. But deleting it based on a split second search on google is wrong, if that where the case, most articles (if not all) relating to any software product would go the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.158.58 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is registered to Intellipool and has only been used for Intellipool-related edits. --A. B. (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the detailed discussion at Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor regarding unique Google hits (196 387)[41][42] as well as unproductive Google News and Google News Archive searches. --A. B. (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, since the deletion here apparently is based on whats in or not in Googles index, you, or someone familiar with the subject, should review what it scores in relevant keywords, that should be a far better "notability" metric consider Google's now famous "page rank" algorithm. buran 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buran, it's hard to prove a negative when it comes to notability. I'm really much less interested in the number of hits than the "reliability" of what turns up. I've seen AfDs fail where a subject has <50 unique hits but they were "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by the WP:NNNotability Guideline. I would not have nominated this article if I could have found something that satisfied the guideline; if something does turn up, I'm happy to turn my "delete" to a "keep". --A. B. (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note on relisting: I am happy to run this a little longer since the nominator is happy to keep the article if notability is established, I would recommend deleting if there are no comments which do this. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, there appear to be no sources that can establish notablity. Nuttah68 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per failure of notability IMO. Rudget Contributions 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is one notable source, review in a IDG paper. http://sartryck.idg.se/Art/Intellipool_nok12004eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.188.198 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding

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

This article is either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both. It appears to have arisen as a PoV fork from Stockholm syndrome. It has been extensively edited by User:hkhenson to ensure that his own beliefs are given prominent, if not exclusive, coverage. However, there is not assertion that Henson's theories have any wider acceptance in the psychological community. Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close AFD immediately. This AFD is an inappropriate effort to punish the primary author for opposing Physchim62 in arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, and to make the history showing possible malfeasance on Physchim62's part less accessible to the public. In the past, Physchim62 has abused his administrative powers by taking a side in favor of User:Sadi Carnot over User:hkhenson, reverting the article to the Sadi Carnot version, and then protecting the article to insure that Keith Henson could not edit it further. By deleting this article, the history links will be obscured. Since Physchim62's behaviour with respect to this article is in arbitration, this AFD should be closed immediately.Kww 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom, and I think the current Sadi Carnot case is complicated enough without it. This is why I chose to bring the matter to the proper forums for article deletion. Kww's actions on AfD debates are part of the case, and maybe the closing admin would like to bear that in mind. Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was in the arbitration prior to you submitting this AFD. Care to try again?Kww 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kww's comment is a rather lamentable assumption of bad faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the assumption of good faith, but investigation of things like this drove me to a conclusion.Kww 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the timing, Physchim62 is most likely trying to retaliate against me pointing out his support for noted pseudoscience pusher Sadi Carnot. He says, "My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom." Wrong. Try here: [43]. Before he put up the AfD he apparently didn't look at the article page, the history or the talk page and put an AfD on a version of the page that contains only Sadi's contributions and none of mine. It is also amusing that he doesn't understand that (for reasons stated at the bottom of the talk page} I think the page *should* be deleted if the misleading and unrelated material is going to be kept. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence that the term "capture bonding" (or "capture-bonding" or "capture bond") is a significant term in any field of psychology. In its current form, the article only cites two sources, and I don't have access to either one, but I'm willing to bet that the phrase "capture bonding" doesn't appear in either one. In [previous versions, the article cited a bunch of articles by Keith Henson, who is also one of the primary authors of Capture bonding. These articles aren't peer reviewed, and Henson doesn't have academic credentials in psychology or any other apparent expertise in the subject. Since "capture bonding" doesn't seem to appear in peer-reviewed academic literature, this article looks like Henson's attempt to promote his own work and his own idiosyncratic take on Stockholm Syndrome, and should be deleted.

Discussion of this article has taken place on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Capture_bonding and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Human_Nature_Review, in case anyone wants to read up on the background. By the way, if it is necessary to keep this article's history available for the arbitration case, the page can simply be blanked until the case is over, then deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With no prejudice to the behavior of the editors involved, the article seems to cite two reliable sources, and thus passes notability guidelines. POV, COI, and other issues are clean-up issues, and nto deletion ones. The behavior of the editors involved should be handled by mediation/arbitration, but none of this is a deletion issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of this article, I have to seriously doubt that those sources use the term "capture bonding". If it can't be shown that this is a notable concept within psychology this article should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible alternative solution Looking through a google search, the term capture bonding appears to be indistinguishable from the established Psychological term Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps a partial merge and redirect are in order? See [44] and [45] and [46] and [47] I will admit that some of these are rather bloggy and not all that reliable, but they DO establish that the terms are really mostly interchangable and that capture bonding is seen, at least by sources apparently unrelated to Henson, as closely related or possibly identical to the Stockholm syndrome, which IS a valid and well established psychological condition. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Henson has been opposing a merge since December 2005 [48]. I would like to see notability which is independant of his writings (which date from 2002). Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One user is not able to overturn consensus. If consensus exists for such a move, it should be done. If one user acts to disrupt the opinion of consensus, then they may be sanctioned for being disruptive.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stockhome syndrome" is an observable symptom. Capture-bonding (credit goes to John Tooby) is an obviously evolved psychological mechanism that--when activated--results in the observable symptom. They are distinct in the same way that "fever" is distinct from the causes of it. The best thing to do might be to blank the page until the discussion here [[49]] concludes. If the decision is to support topic knowledgeable people then I can restore the page. If not, links can be put in where needed to direct people who are interested outside Wikipedia. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to have experts contribute to articles. One of the things an expert can do, hopefully, is point us to reliable sources that contain information about the subject of an article. If you are, as you claim, an expert on the subject of capture bonding, can you cite some reliable sources (preferably peer-reviewed academic sources) that discuss capture bonding as a concept that's distinct from Stockholm Syndrome? Because if such sources can't be found, Capture bonding should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You either don't understand EP and the relation of capture-bonding to Stockholm syndrome or you do and are helping Physchim62 play silly status games. Don't forget he is the one who supported Sadi Carnot when he stuffed the page with unrelated material, some of it outright nonsense. Ask yourself if Physchim62 would have put the page up to be deleted if Sadi was still trying to push his pseudoscience into the article? And why now instead of back in April? Re sources, if HNR isn't considered a good source, would you accept an endorsement from EP big names like John Tooby or Leda Cosmides? If one of them or some other EP name edited the article would you still want to delete it? Keith Henson 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be conceding the point that this term doesn't occur in peer-reviewed literature; if there are no reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Personal endorsements are irrelevant. So are personal attacks, so please stop engaging in them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't concede anything, don't even have an opinion. You can take up the matter of reviewed or not with Robert Young and Ian Pitchford. Pitchford and I had considerable correspondence about the article before it was published. I believe he shared the drafts with his co-editor. Hah, Robert M. Young has a page on Wikipedia [50]. Re personal endorsement, a letter or an edit from John Tooby (who actually first recognized the mechanism) would be a professional not a personal endorsement--given his notable stature in the EP world.
Pointing out facts which can be verified right here on Wikipedia is a personal attack? I am not the only person being attacking over the Sadi Carnot business. See what's going on in the evidence page. [51]. You also seem to be missing the point: I *support* your and Physchim62 intense desire for blanking capture-bonding (as it is) or deleting it. So what's your problem? Keith Henson 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and merge if there's anything worth merging). The term is not widely used, at least in Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism at best. Since there seem to be a few instances of independent use of the term, I suggest redirect rather than delete. --Itub 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know whether or not the idea is factually true, or whether the specific name "capture-bonding" is used in the social sciences, but the basic idea has been around in different forms since long before anyone ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome (Rape of the Sabine women etc. etc.). Furthermore, this AfD seems to have been initiated as part of some kind of extended and convoluted personality conflict (the details of which I don't prticularly understand, or feel like expending any effort in understanding), which is not a good motivation for deleting an article. AnonMoos 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Akhilleus.--Nick Y. 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'nuff said. -- Zz 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like Akhilleus, background searching has failed to demonstrate to me why this topic is encyclopedic, and the current state of the article doesn't avert these concerns. Daniel 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Time

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

The article seems to be a hoax. Also, it is poorly written. --Ixfd64 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Lindberg

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

A member of a notable gaming clan. Cannot find any reliable sources on him, looks like the page was also made by him. So delete.Snakese 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Likely vanity article. Decoratrix 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle City RM2k

Battle City RM2k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable game made with a free RPG Maker 2000 program. Cannot find any sources. so delete. Snakese 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_3&oldid=169048141"