Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 24: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Click DVD Ripper}}
Cassie's second album
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie's second album}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Click DVD Ripper}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Click DVD Ripper}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaGPack}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaGPack}}

Revision as of 21:31, 24 December 2007

< December 23 December 25 >

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 per nom, probably a hoax. BLACKKITE 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's second album

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

Pure crystal ball: no title, no source. Kww (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1Click DVD Ripper

1Click DVD Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources and no assertion of notability. This has existed since March 2006 and is still a bare, unsourced stub; there is no reason to believe it will ever improve. *** Crotalus *** 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reread A7- this is not web content, a real person, or a real group, and so is not covered. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the box at the bottom, containing Template:Db-software, that should cover it. Tiddly-Tom 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That template was created unilaterally, and the actual A7 guideline explicitly excludes software. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TaGPack

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

The article does noet assert notability for this section of the Trees are Green group, an article that is currently under AfD. A google search shows no independent reliable sources that could support a claim of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Pensacola, Florida)

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

Never minding that this page is horribly out of date (McRae's became Belk two years ago), the mall in question seems to be non-notable. A search for sources online turned up nothing but listings for motels nearby or showtimes for the theater. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed down? Since when? I drove past it this weekend, it was open. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suppose I should note, the local paper has written on the mall, and the plan to convert it into a lifestyle center. Haven't paid much attention to it, but it's been written about. I'm sure finding the articles will be a chore, they have a terrible search system. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The arguments for deletion so far have been based on a lot of misinformation. For one, the article does note that the McRae's has been converted to a Belk. McRae's is only mentioned in a historical context. Secondly, the mall is not closed down. It is very much open and functional. The article was written in order to activate a previously created "dead link" on a disambiguation page. Also, notability cannot be based on one random Internet search by a single user. I can only hope that future discussions of this nature would be a little more respectful. Perimeter285 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the square footage alone I believe this is sufficiently notable and we're not running out of disk space any time soon. RFerreira (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no notability established aside from existence. Wikipedia may not be paper, but that is not an excuse to include non-encyclopedic information. The "disk-space" argument is useful, rather, so that you don't have to choose between including two notable articles. This is not such a case.Epthorn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mall pushes the boundaries of super-regional status and is sufficiently notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just seems like another mall to me...non-notable, and square feet (mentioned above) doesn't matter. How much of the square feet is used is the question. Thus, a building might be 1 billion square feet, and only half of it is used. Jonathan I wish you healthy and happy holidays. 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large regional mall, there seem to be sufficient sorces [1] --W.marsh 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Expanded since the article says "currently slated to undergo redevelopment as an open-air lifestyle center, to be renamed The Village at University Place. All of the existing structure except for the anchor stores will be demolished as part of this redevelopment." there will obviously be sources. DGG (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smaller then the 800,000 sqft where size is considered to be notable. There is clearly no attempt to establish notability in the article unless you consider being the newest (build in 1974) large mall in the area. The 'keep if expanded' opinion should be considered a delete opinion since this article was nominated 11 days ago and it has not been expanded. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place Portobello

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

Non-notable mall that lives in the shadow of a much larger mall, Mail Champlain, located less than a mile away. There are also recent news reports that the Wal-Mart and Réno-Dépôt anchor stores of this mall will both close their doors and move to Quartier Dix30, also in the immediate vicinity. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/summarize into Brossard, Quebec article, the city where this mall located, as per WP:NNC. I agree it may not warrant its own article but the information is verifiable and should still get more than just a simple mention in the Brossard article, being a once important mall in its history. Blanchardb, I'm interested in seeing the news reports you mentioned that say that Wal-Mart and Réno-Dépôt will close, please advise. Marlith, it's not an advertisement; I started the article but am not affiliated with this mall. Jsmaster24 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with regard to mentioning the mall in Brossard, Quebec, I'm all for it. As a matter of fact, it's already mentioned in there, but that's an idea for the expansion of the article. Also, the article List of malls in Montreal is full of redlinks, at least one of which is worthy of a separate article in my mind. (Okay, I may sound a bit COI there, as I live just 10 minutes from it.) But many of those redlinks should be converted into nolinks. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep the article alive. Many malls in other cities have their own pages, why shouldn't this one? Until it is officially dead it deserves its own article. MTLskyline (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Jsmaster24 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I'm a contributor to the article, I would go with Keep although I wouldn't mind if it got deleted because I must admit the mall doesn't have anything special other than the fact that it once housed the first ever Woolco store to open in the province and perhaps because it is the oldest (still standing) shopping mall in Brossard. You probably will never find me create an article about Place Portobello but I guess it somewhat deserve its article because of two reasons I've mentionned. Farine—Preceding comment was added at 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is defined by the existence of independent third-party sources about the topic, not by the simple fact of the topic's existence. Merge to a list of shopping malls in Brossard. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another small mall. I would not oppose a merge, but there is nothing of note to merge in. If this article is deleted, the template should be updated so that we don't encourage another trip here for an AfD again. WP:ILIKEIT and other stuff exists reasoning is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place Desormeaux

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

A small shopping center. Nothing special about it. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 04:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Carnaval

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

Dead mall near Montreal, named after its original anchor store. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trees are Green

Trees are Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organisation from the Recycling category does not show any significant notability, hence I am nominating it for deletion. Alex Marshall (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect for GFDL reasons. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The C Word

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

No evidence of notability. (WP:N) Play has never been publicly performed (at least according to this article.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Time

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

Non-notable page per WP:N that had been previously deleted from WP and evidently restarted. Mh29255 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to MTV (Canada) MTV Live (Canada) for GFDL reasons. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Salema

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

Unnotable host of a single show, article has never been more than a 1-3 sentence stub since its creation over a year ago, despite being tagged multiple times for article issues and being PRODed. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree this is the merest of stub articles. But I removed the PROD and would like a chance to explain why. 1) as a National co-host on MTV Canada, I believe she meets -- if just barely -- the WP:BIO requirement for "television personalities" to play "significant roles" on TV. 2) She has also received significant press coverage. The three articles I linked to are Sceneandheard.ca, a Canadian online arts magazine; Metro, Toronto's largest free daily; and canoe.ca, the Web portal for Canada's Sun Newspaper chain (in this case, an article from its largest paper, the Toronto Sun). I don't believe this is an exhausive list of her coverage, either, there is more. That's my logic, anyway. I'll respect the decision you make. Happy holidays, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used "cite news". I either add things to articles as in-line citations or as external links. I don't believe that invalidates them. Does it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although as the MTV Canada article states, since its acquisition by CTV Globemedia its distribution is expanding dramatically. You anticipated -- and maybe undercut -- my next question, which is that if she was a host on MTV USA instead of MTV Canada, would there be less doubt about whether that represented a prominent role on television? I legitimately don't know the answer -- maybe the answer is no, maybe lots of similarly prominent US cable television personalities have been deleted. I'm just not as sure there's such a qualitative difference between being a cable host on MTV Canada and being one in the US. Anyway, she is already mentioned in the MTV Canada Live article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest, rather, that the whole point of this discussion is that A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... television personalities... with significant roles per WP:BIO. And that a national host on MTV Canada is, arguably, just such a role. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radwimps

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

Notability of the group is questionable; the article doesn't answer it. I cannot find satisfactory answers on the net either (in English). The article isn't even well written, and is not suitable for English Wikipedia in its current form. huji—TALK 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. east.718 at 15:44, January 6, 2008

Courtenay Semel

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

Has appeared in one reality TV show. Her other claim to fame are the rumors in blogs and gossip columns about her supposed lesbian relationship with Linsday Lohan. Although she churns up a nice amount of Ghits due to this rumor, I don't think that it has passed the notability standard for Wikipedia. None of the sources are Reliable Sources. Additionally, according to WP:BLP1E, people notable for one event do not pass the WP:NOTABLE standard. And of course, as this is a living person, the strict standard of WP:BLP should apply. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages per the discussion below and per WP:NOTINHERITED:
George Foreman III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shanna Ferrigno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noah Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alex A. Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haley Giraldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander Clifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Redirect. The gossip should, of course, be removed from the article, but that is a recent thing. The article itself has existed since 19 September 2005, long before this blog silliness. She was also in the Bruce Willis film Hudson Hawk, and a film called Sweetie Pie with Paris Hilton which doesn't have an article. This puts her on par with many of the other stubs for cast of Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive. If this isn't good enough, then redirect to Terry Semel, where the current content of the article already exists. Gimmetrow 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. If she's notable, so is everyone who's gotten their 15 minutes. Unschool (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. Take a look at the rest of the cast of Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive; only one looks notable (excepting the nobility=notability argument). The rest are about as notable as the one with the deleted article. In my opinion, the show article should contain brief bios of the cast, and any that ever become known for something else will get split out and become a "main" article. Until then, no stubs, just redirects to the Filthy Rich article, since that's primarily what they're known for. Gimmetrow 08:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the addition of the rest of the cast, I'm adjusting my view to merging the content of these stubs to a cast bios section of Filthy Rich. If nobody has an objection to this, I'll merge the content in a day or two (without birthdates per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays). The doubt for me is whether the ex-stubs should redirect to the famous parent, or to Filthy Rich. One of the cast is already redirected to an article about another reality show which dealt with her family. Gimmetrow 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that they should be redireted/merged to their parents for two reasons. 1 - some of them have minor valuable encyclpedic information outside of Filthy Rich, and that info can't really be merged into the Filthy Rich article. 2) in most cases, the parents' notability is greater and longer lasting then the show. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Badly needs independent sources; it should be considered again if it does not get them. Chick Bowen 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore

AfDs for this article:
Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bird watching group. Ridernyc (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this user vote? No contributions to WP other than a few deletion demands. Suspect sock-puppet.212.71.37.74 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does read a bit like an advert. Notability for the club isn't established, and it appears to be a local club for the Bangalore area. "[non-commercial] Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bangalore has a population of about 6.5 million, which is larger than the population of many countries. The Bangalore area extends beyond the city so must have an even larger population. I don't think you can call this an organisation whose activities are "local in scope". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W2pi

W2pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This website asserts no notability through reliable sources, and appears to be just a flash in the pan story, and as Wikipedia is also not news, this doesn't fit that requirement either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Halo (series). Keilanatalk(recall) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo universe

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

Fails in how it is presented, WP:CITE, and WP:GAMECRUFT. Fangz of Blood 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and edit. I don't see why it's necessary to completely DELETE the page, it just needs editing. Right now, I'm busy with college applications, but in the next month or so I should be able to get started on re-vamping the page. Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - such a subject should be based on staff interviews, magazine articles, and other out-of-universe source, not an in-universe plot synopsis and descriptions. Contributors may wish to try Halopedia or somesuch instead. Marasmusine (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Any useful content from this article is in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008; it was content that was already in that article, therefore the GFDL requirements are satisfied. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution

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

Subject not notable in its own right; suggest merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --- this is an article about the slogan of a campaign that already has a strong WP article. It is far more likely that the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 attaining GA (or Ron Paul achieving FA) than it is that this article about a neologism could ever become an FA. Three additional points:
    1. Another Paul campaign neologism, Moneybomb, quickly became a magnet for OR and coatrack Paul boosterism
    2. WP would not benefit from the (constantly changing) campaign slogans of every campaign getting articles; where do we draw the line? Presidents? Senators? State senators? There are already venues in WP for this content --- the articles on the campaigns themselves.
    3. What is the likelihood that this article retains any value into 2009? Even the successful Bush campaigns don't leave this kind of detritus. --- tqbf 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reply per points: 1. That another article about Ron Paul became a center for OR and coatrack is irrelevant here. 2. The article is not solely about the slogan, but is about the term as it is used to describe Paul's grass roots support. Said usage is consistent with its use in the media, where the activities of Paul's base independent of his campaign have received enough media attention to make it notable and warrant a separate article. Please re-read the article, which I've been working on improving. 3. The article documents a notable grass roots campaign independent of a politician's own official structure. Given the rarity with which this kind of phenomenon has occurred, I'd say this article has large potential to be useful in 2009 no mater the outcome because of the topic's importance in Presidential election history. Buspar (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      An "improvement" to an inappropriate article made by shifting content out of another valuable article can hardly be considered an "improvement" to WP as a whole. Again: you are creating a second article for the same topic. Paul's entire campaign is a grassroots effort. This is no different than would have been an '04 attempt to create a "People vs. The Powerful" Kerry article. --- tqbf 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You still haven't answered my point that the article I'm removing material from is too large by Wiki standards and, therefore, Wiki policy says that branching it off is entirely appropriate! If the Kerry article was having the same length problem, your hypothetical new article would be entirely justified. The fact remains that Ron Paul is 83 Kb and his campaign article is 119 Kb, so creating new articles to contain subsets of the info there is not only warranted but expected. This article is just one such subset. Given the continued length of the parent articles, more branches may be appropriate. After all, so long as an article meets WP:RS and WP:N, it should be kept. And you've already conceded both of them and seem to have no suitable response to my WP:SIZE citations. Buspar (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It's transparently not a WP:SUMMARY page; if it was, it wouldn't be called "Ron Paul Revolution". You do realize these articles have edit histories, right? This is a POV fork, which two editors are currently attempting to retroactively turn into a summary page. No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes. Perhaps someone less involved with the Paul campaign should divide it up. --- tqbf 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      "No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes." Wiki's not a crystal ball - and neither are you. :) The future of the article will be guided by consensus and constructive editing. Deleting an article just because you suspect it may become POV sometime in the future is not a sound basis. The article should be judged for what it is right now: a branch off of two other oversized articles that contains reliable sources and is notable. That it didn't start out that way is irrelevant, since articles can be improved. Also, this isn't a case of a POV fork: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Do you have evidence Duchamps disagreed with another editor and so started this one to avoid consensus? I saw none going through the edit histories. Buspar (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a second article about the Paul campaign, ostensibly about the campaign slogan (a conceit not shared by any other '08 campaign), but really about how the Paul campaign is different/better/grassrootser-y than others. I'm going to opt to continue to call it a POV fork, but I understand your objection. --- tqbf 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -True “Ron Paul Revolution” it is a slogan but it also refers to the supporters. As the grass roots supporters (in their mind) joining the revolution, change in America, we can also see from moneybomb fundraising and intrest is not small. It is in Mainstreem media TIME and theLos Angelas Times refering to “the Revolution” AKA the supporters. WP needs to define what this word as it is gaining in common parlance IE nightly news. It’s more of an ideology than a slogan which is why many will poo poo it!--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Duchamps comb should have mentioned that he is the creator of the nominated article; he also specifically requested that User:Buspar, User:Smileyborg, User:Katydidit, User:Monsieurdl, User:Verad, and User:John J. Bulton comment on this discussion; all of these editors have written favorably about Paul. --- tqbf 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Monsieurdl and Verad would be surprised to know they'd written favorably about Paul (diffs please); I see no reason to question Duchamps comb's statement that only neutral canvassing of Paul-interested editors was intended. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. WP has edit histories on all articles. Note the editors Duchamps did not request comments from. I think you're wrong and will leave it at that. --- tqbf 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment --- I dispute that any mainstream media outlet refers to "the revolution". When TIME prints the words "Ron Paul Revolution", they are referring to the campaign slogan. They do the same thing with the Straight Talk Express, which (properly) does not have an article separate from John McCain. --- tqbf 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain. Topic can be easily dealt with within Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Article is awfully written to boot, usually Paulites are a little more skillful. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Article has been changed a lot since I originally cast my position; I no longer have a good sense for what the best way to arrange all the RP material is. Nor do I envy the closing admin who has to sort this one out. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very biased, can be contained in the presidential campaign article and I definitely feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a neologism, or merely an off-hand comment that may/not have much currency. ShivaeVolved 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • --OK, merge, and make more encyclopedic. I just want someone to be able to do a WP word search and find it. Without reading the "whole page". Would prefer It's own page but am not opposed to merge, and make more encyclopedic. Maybe some off you folks would lend a hand in edditing?--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea of Wikipedia is NOT so that "keywords" will have linked advertising information, so I disagree that the info in this article should be kept only so that it appears when a user searches for "Ron Paul Revolution". I believe this article should be maintained independently of the original; rationale follows my vote a bit farther down the page. Now, if the consensus IS indeed to merge and redirect this term to the main article, the redirect should link directly to the subsection where the information is moved to (as opposed to a redirect to the top of the Ron Paul campaign article). Agreed? --smileyborg (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "Ron Paul Revolution" has been used in multiple news reporters, such as Jack Cafferty. It is therefore worth having an article that details what it is precisely. I've seen news articles describing the "revolution" in papers like the Washington Post and other places, which means the article passes the "perfect article test." I suggest having the article be about the people who support Ron Paul and their efforts that are independent of the official campaign, such as the money bombs, blimp, and fund raising. This would keep the article on the official campaign from becoming cluttered. Buspar (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment --- it's hard to dispute that the term is newsworthy; we don't need to dredge up every reference to the term. But the topic already has an article: "Ron Paul Revolution" is the slogan for Paul's campaign. In effect, you aren't asking for an article about a notable topic: you're demanding that the WP carry two of them. If boosters for every candidate did that, WP would be littered with useless articles about defunct campaigns. Why carry two articles, when one article can be improved and taken to GA? --- tqbf 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per tqbf, and merge with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. 71.166.36.102 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --On one hand, the article does not seem to have enough standing or significance to stand on its own, and I would normally suggest it simply be merged and redirected. However, I do believe that the Ron Paul campaign in particular is the only presidential campaign at present for 2008 which has so extensively mobilized itself at the local, grassroots level. Since there are a significant number of grassroots efforts in the "Ron Paul Revolution," I do not feel this information will fit appropriately into the main Ron Paul article. Therefore, I recommend KEEPING this article for the moment, until it is no longer a current event (ie, Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" becomes history, etc), and there is no more significant grassroots activity for the Ron Paul campaign. Just a note, if there were any other candidate who was running such a large grassroots campaign, I would recommend he/she be entitled to a similar article as well. --smileyborg (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. --- tqbf 14:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me rephrase that. I believe this article should be kept due to its significance and one-of-a-kind following. And I argue to err on the side of caution when removing an article such as this one, which is what I was trying to get across. I believe the article should be kept for a period of time to allow it to be developed more than one day. If the article turns out to contain information that is either a) solely biased, or b) not important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards, then it should be removed. Essentially, this article was created "before its time," as we do not yet know the full significance of the phenomenon it describes. But I do see where you are coming from. --smileyborg (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That policy isn't relevant to this particular AfD, as the article in question does not contain speculation and is well sourced. Also, a vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is NOT a vote to delete, per past AfD precedent where allowing a current event to pass and then going back to reevaluate its contents was done (such as with Internet celebrities). To delete, you need to show the article isn't noteworthy in the way it lacks secondary sources. This article does not lack secondary sources, so its contents are notable. Buspar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            Where did you get the impression that the only reason an article could be deleted was lack of notability? This article should be deleted because it is a redundant POV fork. --- tqbf 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful info. The term is not notable on its own and the content applies to his campaign, which already has its own article.--Svetovid (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless if Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" is still valid. Because this is the first time in recent/digital history that thousand of people have become interested in a canadite in a personal way via meetup.com as well thousands of first time would be voters are now registering. Google “Ron paul cured my apathy” Even the Nov 5 moneybomb was created by one such supporter. –My point being that many thousands of people interested in politics will change the face of US politicks, energized to back the next big thing they are willing to put their time, money and vote into. Wit the origins being “the Ron Paul Revolution. I’d say that’s worthy.--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we have the crux of the problem with these Paul neologism articles --- they assert that Paul's campaign is somehow "special", so much so that its slogans and slang take on encyclopedic value. In any other campaign, "revolution" is an empty peacock word. On the subject of Paul, it seems to be more valuable than the Rose Revolution --- an actual revolt, which now has fewer words than this Paul article. --- tqbf 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's like there's never been an American grassroots candidacy that caught on and brought in uninvolved voters before ... no Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or George McGovern in 1972 or Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 ... sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete; this appears more to be cheerleading for Paul than anything else --Mhking (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, BUT that's just how the article is written at present. With some editing it can be restored to a NPOV status. Most importantly, articles should not be deleted due the the content of the article, but ONLY for the content/significance of the article title itself. I think the quality of this article is both high enough with sufficient content to merit its own separate article...there's too much to merge (instead of further lengthening the Ron Paul 08 Campaign article, this article can be used to take some of the load off from the aforementioned article...official campaign activity should be detailed in the aforementioned article, and this article should focus on the grassroots aspects). There's far too much sourced and fairly high quality information to simply delete. --smileyborg (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This article references Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, press releases, The Ron Paul Blog (to "verify" that Paul has "surpassed" Obama), Meetup.com, a Ron Paul chat log, "Hotties 4 Ron Paul", and 3 different Ron Paul vanity domains. Much of the "high quality" sourcing simply repeats content already present on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and Moneybomb. I think we'll live without this article. --- tqbf 05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 50 some references, including the Associated Press, CBS, Time, Situation Room, Boston Globe, and others. Please read the article before dismissing it so readily. It already includes numerous reliable secondary sources. Buspar (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note: this article never had "NPOV status"; it was created by a Paul partisan, and every person advocating for the article in this AfD debate has also written favorably about Paul in Ron Paul (or related), which is how they ended up on the nominated article creator's canvass list to comment here. There's no original good status to return this article to. --- tqbf 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, since you repeat this charge, please see my and Monsieurdl's comments above. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment refutes my assertion without evidence. --- tqbf 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning, a person who liked anime could never write an NPOV article on anime because they like it. That's bad logic. I, for one, have a history of cleaning up Ron Paul articles to keep the personal opinion out and only including opinions from secondary sources. If you see instances of POV in the current article, feel free to remove them. But deleting an article because you think the person who started it has a bias is neither logical nor assuming good faith. Buspar (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying what you can or can't write, and my reasons for deleting the article, spelled out at the top of this page, have nothing to do with your POV. I'm simply disputing the idea that there is some "NPOV status" for this article to "return" to; the article was created as a POV fork of an existing article. --- tqbf 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. However, isn't the point not what the article can be returned to but more what it can become? I've already improved the article by moving material that was cluttering other articles to this one. This article also allows for detailed info on the blimp and networking, material that doesn't belong in either the moneybomb article or in the article on Paul's official campaign since neither the blimp or the networking belong to the official campaign. Buspar (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're doing great work, which will eventually be a service to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, where it belongs. --- tqbf 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO. I'm not saying that at all (don't be a troll). Only a select few (you) seem to have a personal vindetta. --Duchamps comb (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ron Paul's presidential campaign page. The information is notable enough that it does deserve to be mentioned (with proper citations and NPOV of course), but I really don't forsee that it would ever need its own seperate article.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The mention of Paul's slogan makes me go into hot flashes! I can't control myself! Just kidding. I've seen more trivial matters on kept on wiki though.Reinoe (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not that's it's trivial, it's that it already has an article. --- tqbf 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yet another Ron Paul is wonderful article. The swarm of other articles about Ron Paul cover this sufficiently. Burzmali (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename for a very simple reason (I may go into the other subreasons and rebuttals later). There is a consensus here for keeping the usable content (i.e., high number of "merge" comments), and the current campaign article is already overlong at 110K: so breaking it out in summary style into official and grassroots activity is an excellent way to fix both problems. AFD after one day seems uncharitable when a cursory review of the sources suggests much useful minable material awaits gleaning; and breaking out much of the campaign article's material on Internet, fundraising/moneybombs, straw polls, and supporter blitzes would be well-moved from campaign to Revolution. This is additional to the well-developed and unanswered points of smileyborg and Buspar.
One other fine point of Buspar's: this is much better than having a separate "Ron Paul Blimp" article. The blimp is borderline notable enough right now to merit mention in a more generic article like this, but would be harder to defend on its own.
I would encourage all to remember that the question must be stated as being about the existence of an article about grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul (add: that would be an example of a neutral rename), including one section on origins of the term "Ron Paul Revolution". Pretending the debated article is about some other topic (such as about a term or slogan only, or about pro-Paul POV) would not be helpful for finding the consensus on this question as I and others state it. As stated, the question yields a clear affirmative. Disclosure: I successfully predicted this article's eventual creation on 11/30 12:23, but have not been minded to contribute to it. (I also believe personally that, if deleted, it will be recreated sustainably.) John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think we shouldn't delete the article because if we do, people will recreate it? That's what protection is for. --- tqbf 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say potential recreation was a deletion argument, but a personal belief. And protection is not proper for sustainable recreation. I note you did not respond to my actual arguments. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article "contains usable content" because it "repeats the content of other articles", such as Moneybomb and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. This article is a simple POV fork. --- tqbf 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the article recently, you'd see that I've moved material into this article that is not repeated in the other two, so your redundancy argument no longer applies since this article now contains more details, with the other two only have brief summaries and "See also" links. Buspar (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly notable in its own right as a grassroots campaign. Any information here overlapping with the campaign article (e.g. details of moneybomb, Boston tea party, internet rankings, social networking) should be kept here and summarised in the campaign article, with See Also links to Ron Paul Revolution under the Internet Popularity and Fundraising section headings. Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that Moneybomb (and, thus, Boston Tea Party) already have articles? Your argument is therefore that "internet rankings" and "social networking" need their own article. --- tqbf 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Moneybomb article is about the neologism used to describe a grassroots political fundraising event - it is not limited to Ron Paul events. The November 5th event and the BTP should be described at their most detailed here. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we see the other problem with these neologism articles:
    • That article made "no consensus" on an AfD by arguing that it was a neutral term that applied to all candidacies, but
    • it's since become such a cesspool of OR and coatrack boosterism that the most prominent thing on the page is picture of Ron Paul, and
    • the only aspect of it that applies to non-Paul campaigns are its attempts to attribute every fundraising event in the 2008 primary season to attempts to copy Ron Paul, and yet
    • it's now being cited as a non-Paul article to justify fitting yet another Paul neologism into the encyclopedia.
    Let's be clear: the Boston Tea Party event you referred to earlier is the most prominent example of the marginally notable phenomenon of "moneybombs". But, for the sake of further expanding Paulite content on WP, you advocate removing it from the moneybomb page and adding it to this article? One wonders if you'll be up in arms a week from now, when it's been copied back to Moneybomb so that it resides in both articles. --- tqbf 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that the Boston Tea Party event should be removed from the Moneybomb article, it should be mentioned there as an example of a moneybomb, but described in detail here at Ron Paul Revolution. The rest of your points are irrelevant to this AfD discussion. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE some folks are deleting sections from the Ron Paul page and the Ron Paul 2008 page and puting it in the Ron Paul Revolution page. I don't mind making the other pages smaller, but if this page is deleted the info. will be lost. We need to figure out where to put all the grassroots fundraising info...--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikichaos! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that I have done is source a few things, add a few things (NOT from other Wikipedia articles as you suggested), and change the See Also to a more descriptive one that explains this article is focusing on the grassroots efforts that are too large for the main article, and to go to the main one for official campaign appearances, polls, etc. Info will not be lost, this article will either remain as it is, be moved to another more descriptive name, or merged back into the original. I support keeping this article and moving things over from the official main campaign article that would better fit here. And if the consensus is that the name of this article does not properly reflect the contents, maybe rename the article (I don't have any better ideas...). I think the AfD tag should be removed, and ONLY possibly replaced with a suggested merge tag...but we should have another discussion on whether or not to do so. Seems to me that nearly everyone agrees not to simply delete this information in the article outright. So it boils down to keep as is, or merge into the main article. Time for a new discussion, let's start at page 1! :) --smileyborg (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're trying to say about what "it boils down to", but it's currently 14 v 5 in favor of "delete", 4 of the 5 "keeps" were canvassed, and one of them is the article creator. --- tqbf 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not canvass! Thank you. I only contacted people who edited on Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views. --Maybe I'll go and send a "NPOV invitation" to many more. Maybe some new ideas and opinions could stop all this incessant filibuster.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:tqbf that you are canvassing, and you've contacted at least two or three other pro-Paul posters in an attempt to influence the outcome of this discussion since he raised the issue. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the invitation I sent out to ALL who edited on the Ron Paul page. Did you even check to see how many people I invited that wanted to delete the page? Check your FACTS before you espouse your simple mindedness.--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral invitation is still canvassing when it is only sent to people you believe would agree with you. I think you're being disingenuous. You can take it to my talk page if you want to argue further. --- tqbf 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that myself and others have not improved the quality of the discussion? You're both assuming bad faith and being uncivil. Your point might be valid if all I did was say "Keep per Duchamps," but since I've refuted several of your arguments and been generally constructive, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. But yes, I think you're here because you were canvassed. --- tqbf 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love how your response to being told you're canvassing is to go and canvass nineteen more users. =) --- tqbf 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how you know he is a RP supporter =P Burzmali (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please obey WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your implication that Ron Paul supporters are somehow poor Wikipedians is not appropriate for this discussion. Do not use such language in the future. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To notify other editors with a neutral "friendly notices" of ongoing discussions, messages that are written NOT to influence the outcome but rather to improve the quality of a discussion should be looked at with negativity.--Duchamps comb (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would remind all that Duchamps is basically an SPA (see here). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE (image removed) Thanks "HelloAnnyong"...--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- I thought of SPA-tagging too; he's worked on several articles, but virtually all are all Paul campaign articles. --- tqbf 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. afd is premature. This article, IMO, ought to discuss the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul. The presidential campaign article is bloated enough. This should not be a pov fork, but rather a sort of subarticle to the Ron Paul Presidential campaign 2008. If people want to roll back all the information into the campaign article, go ahead. But that article is huge. Just give this some time and let this article become stable, and then if it's unsatisfactory afd it again.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with above. As I mentioned before, close this AfD as this article is NOT going to be deleted outright. Then let's all move to the talk page and discuss whether to MERGE or KEEP. This discussion is getting too long and personal anyways. Don't you agree? --smileyborg (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What does this comment even mean? The AfD will close in a few days. How do you figure this for a snowball keep? Even with canvassing, this article loses. --- tqbf 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, there is no "snowball keep." But if you read through the votes, nearly every person agrees (=consensus) to NOT delete the article without a merge first. So thus, the discussion becomes merge or keep. (Don't forget - a merge means this article essentially will be deleted, just the useful info will be "salvaged" first.) I simply suggest we start the discussion over because this one got a bit messy and now we can rule out a pure deletion as there is definitely a consensus not to lose some of the info in this article. Okay? --smileyborg (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Merge is one likely outcome of this debate. Keep is not. Either way: AfD's don't close on account of "messiness". Wouldn't have been "messy", had it not been canvassed. --- tqbf 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      But see, the problem is that an AfD that goes through as Delete risks losing info in the article if not properly merged. IF the consensus of "merge" is reached, then relevant info should be merged and this article turned into a redirect. The AfD should be suspended (or Keep), and we will simply discuss this on the talk page again so people can "revote" if they elected to simply delete the article at an earlier point in time, or if people wish to change their minds now that there is less risk of completely losing all information. By simplifying this debate and starting over, I'm acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, not my personal desire to have this article remain as it is - honestly, I could care less if it gets merged or not (even though I do have an opinion on the matter). --smileyborg (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you already made this argument, but there it is again. I think we can wait for an admin to close the AfD, though. I'm still delete. --- tqbf 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument is that (even though we aren't voting and shouldn't be) I count the tally to be 18 Delete OR Merge VS. 8 Keep at present. That is a majority, yet hardly a consensus as 30% argue to keep the article as is, while the remaining 60% are somewhat split between a pure delete and a merge. This ambiguity, in my opinion, requires a clean debate to clear up the mess. So while you wait for the AfD to close, you might as well head over and put your vote in to merge over on the talk page. --smileyborg (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It's 19-8 (closing in on 3-1 against); you missed the nom. I'll stick with the AfD debate; let us know if you figure anything out on your talk page. --- tqbf 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, right, 19-8. But closing in on 3-1 against? No, it's much closer to 2-1 against (2.375-1 to be exact). And remember, that 2-1 is lumping pure deletes and votes to merge into one category. My only point was that there is not a consensus yet, however. But anyways, if you are so opposed to contributing to the article's own talk page, so be it. I have no interest in persuading anyone to do anything. --smileyborg (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing to remember: AfD's aren't decided by majority rule, but by the application of Wiki policy. Even if there are fewer keep votes than delete votes, if the keep votes make better arguments, the article will be kept (assuming the admin reads the discussion as they're supposed to). So, the outcome of this AfD can't be predicted just yet. Buspar (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed wholeheartedly. --- tqbf 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the definition of the term is different to different people, and every element of it can be more properly placed somewhere else (chiefly the campaign article - grassroots efforts on behalf of a candidate are part of political campaigns, not a separate phenomenon). If somewhere down the road the Ron Paul Revolution is recognized as a significant concept in political science, then it might deserve its own article, but for now it seems like a redirect to the campaign article and the incorporation therein of whatever useful content can be found in this one would suffice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright. In the nomination I suggested a merge, but most useful information in this article is duplicated elsewhere. It is unlikely that this poorly written ad about an campaign slogan for a minor candidate could ever achieve NPOV status. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the pro-Paul canvassing surrounding this AfD. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This new article covers an important and unique topic. Merging the article into the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is unnecessary, would make said article too long, and would be unwise, because it covers a separate topic. The Ron Paul Revolution is unique in that it is independent of the official campaign. Like the Goldwater Conservative movement, the RPR is very likely to outlast the 2008 election season. RPR is Goldwater Conservatism on steroids. It provides enough information for at least one separate article. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your example disproves your point — there's no separate Goldwater Conservative article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Good idea. There ought to be a separate article about the Goldwater revolution too - even though it was much smaller, and has till now been put to bed by the neocons. The Ron Paul Revolution is resurrecting it and giving it a much more libertarian flavor. It could be incorporated into this article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Then Delete - I'm officially changing my vote (Can I do that? I hope so...). The R.P.R. isn't yet notable especially since we don't know if he'll even make it out of the primary. Even if he does, this isn't notable enough as is to justify its own category in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not stand on its own. Topic is covered in the campaign article. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on that link about "not a newspaper" and the word "newspaper" did not appear on that page once. I'd say an encyclopedia is a distillation of all newspapers past and present. Also, the article is good even if Paul drops out today. It doesn't depend on any prediction. Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic. Korky Day (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he wasn't. I said that I wasn't aware. I don't check every day every article I've ever edited, so I deserve to be notified when one of them is up for deletion. Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- One of the reasons that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is "too big" is that it's poorly edited. For instance, the contents of Moneybomb are, predictably, duplicated almost in their entirety. A large list of "notable campaign appearances" dominates the latter half of the article. The article has five paragraphs of information about the fundraising results of a single fiscal quarter. Another fifteen paragraphs of content apparently detail anything ever said about the candidate by anyone notable. Perhaps editing is a better cure for the ailments of this article, not wholesale metastasis across the rest of WP. --- tqbf 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, the WP:SIZE arguments for preservation are undermined by the fact that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is flooded with items that are simply not noteworthy. Permitting this fork to exist merely allows the items contributing to the excess size to persist unaddressed. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, "Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic." Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of us, on both sides, are substituting our own judgement for that of the anonymous reader. That's what editing is. --- tqbf 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ron Paul campaign article may be long, but it is also generally well sourced. Where a reliable source exists that provides a comment on a factor relevant to the campaign, it should be included to make the article as perfect as possible. Remember that noteworthiness is determined by the media attention it receives. So your argument that it's not noteworthy is countered by the very presence of secondary sources. Remember, the perfect article "is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects." I argue that the article is too long not because it does not contain noteworthy material, but because some of the material is better placed in sub-articles such as the one being discussed here. Buspar (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't criticize the article for being unsourced; I criticized it for being poorly-edited and redundant. --- tqbf 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get stuck on the CONTENT of articles; when an article is deleted, it is because the article's name in and of itself is inappropriate, insignificant, etc. Content can always be changed to better fit WP's standards and the article's title. But the title itself determines whether an article lives or dies. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being poorly edited isn't something that qualifies an article for deletion, however, so long as it meets WP:RS. And redundancy is easy to fix. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP --- The r3VOLution is not about a man, the man Ron Paul is the first one to admit this. Rather, it is a continuation of the original American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. It is deserving of its own page because it is much larger than the man Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul 2008 had nothing to do with the r3VOLution logo. This is a movement that needs to be documented. It is not a man says Ron Paul.Anappealtoheaven (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Anappealtoheaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --- tqbf 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, a quick glance at his contrib's shows he's been generally editing political candidates articles, not only Ron Paul ones. And that doesn't somehow affect his credibility to have an opinion on this AfD. I don't think you should be hunting for ways to discredit votes for "Keep" that disagree with yours. I'm sure some of the other votes for "Delete" have been made by editors with similar edit histories, but to me, that's really not important unless they are sock-puppet accounts. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check his contribs; he edits other GOP candidates to add negative information to them, and adds positive information to RP articles, and that seems to be the extent of it. Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten that out. --- tqbf 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument that voting to wait and see on future notability is somehow a vote to delete is NOT in keeping with past precedent. When Chris Crocker was put up for an AfD the second time, conditional keep votes (i.e. wait and see if Crocker gained popularity beyond Internet stardom) were considered equally valid as unconditional, resulting in a "no consensus" ruling. So the argument that a vote to wait is a vote to delete is incorrect given past AfD rulings. Buspar (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to suggest that I determine what votes are and aren't valid, but for what it's worth, WP is not a newspaper or a crystal ball; if you can't say an article is going to remain valuable, that's a symptom of a bad article. --- tqbf 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, can say it's going to remain valuable, as right now we have 1 article on the candidate, 1 on his official campaign (plus sub articles), and 1 on the independent grassroots effort. How would information on that not be valuable later on? There's little if any speculation in the article (which wouldn't retain value) and a good amount of hard facts (which do retain value). SO I don't see how either newspaper or crystal ball apply here. Redudancy is your strongest argument for deletion so far, but that can be resolved with some syncing up of the articles (which I've already done some). And there's still WP:SIZE that says subarticles related to Paul's campaign should exist. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I considered a merge. This is not unique to the 2008 election since I recall seeing this slogan used in the past, so it spans multiple elections. Probably the most ubiquitous campaign sign in Vegas this season! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice- Nothing but spam by another Ron Paul supporter. Haven't they vandalized the Internet enough? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pro-Ron Paul article that would be better off as a paragraph in the Ron Paul Campaign article. Not neccessary, and in all probability will be forgotten in three years. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Merge As stated by several above users, this neologism has been used by multiple news sources. However, if the page cannot be saved, I suggest it be merged into Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. However, the idea that such a well referenced and well written article be deleted.... I do not think this bodes well for the future of Wikipedia. --Sharkface217 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sharkface! Rather than try to analyze the above morass and reply point-by-point (as another editor seems keen on doing), I will merely append here to voice my confidence that a neutral admin will find a nonconsensus closure, and to re-emphasize a glaring problem with deletion (especially one-day deletion of an article that is well-sourced and content-worthy even though it hasn't had time to be developed properly). Most of the delete comments have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus at Ron Paul to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement for grassroots campaigning for Paul is in this article, with most of the campaign article more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now Ron Paul is laid out in summary style with reference to six other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. Deletion is simply not the way to decide where content goes; the simultaneous delete period hampers ability to move content and in fact encourages the redundancy itself, because of fears of this, that, or t'other vanishing. A great chunk ~20K has been removed from Ron Paul on the presumption that this article will stand. I would appreciate the prior commenters questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny to watch the things people will say when they forget that everything on WP has an edit history. Next time, before you strike "~20k" worth of content from an article, you might wait to see how the AfD on the POV fork you've decided to merge to comes out. --- tqbf 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your first sentence! I was referring to the striking of 19K by CheshireKatz, who also opted for deletion of the Revolution article above. What were you referring to ("next time, before you strike")? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - I'm pretty much on the fence here but overall I think that since this is a movement as part of Paul's presidential campaign, and not a simple grassroots effort about some social cause, it makes sense to incorporate it as a section of the article about Ron Paul's campaign. -Timberlax (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, people, there is no such thing as "delete and merge"! The GFDL won't allow it. If you merge text into another article you have to have some way to determine the original authors, who retain copyright, and have licensed that copyright under a license that requires attribution. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge is merge. If the outcome is merge, leave a redirect. Does anyone really care? --- tqbf 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people care. A merge is completely different from a deletion. In fact it was incorrect in the first place to bring a requested merge to AfD -- see WP:MERGE for the proper procedure. AfD is only for when you want the article deleted, which means its history will no longer be accessible. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to reread WP:AFD (and I know you have 5x my edits) --- merge is a common outcome of AfD. The nom wanted to delete. I want to delete. John wants to keep. The outcome might not be either. Obviously, any of us can go do a WP:BOLD merge right now, but given the debate here, the prudent thing to do is to wait for the discussion to close; it would be a dick move for me to pretend like John and "Duchamps Comb" are OK with a merge. --- tqbf 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is a common outcome. But it shouldn't be the intent going in. If you know you want a merge, either do it yourself boldly, or use the "requested merge" methodology. And you stated from the start that you wanted a merge (even if you changed your mind later), which means this nomination was procedurally incorrect. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know which AfD you're commenting on now, but I think this is the Nth time I've pointed out that the nom wants a delete, and I want a delete. Just because I'm not going to be apoplectic if the article is merged, doesn't mean I commented in bad faith. --- tqbf 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always wanted this article deleted, what little useful info there is in it placed in the appropriate article(s) and possibly a redirect placed on the page. I changed this to a simple delete later on to be clearer about this. Perhaps I used the word "merge" carelessly (or maybe not)--but why shouldn't we salvage what's useful from the article? At any rate, people !vote for delete and merges (meaning "stick relevant info in appropriate article") all the time. This is the first I've ever heard that GFDL doesn't allow one to do so (though that doesn't mean you're not right, necessarily) and it seems a little unnecessarily lawyerly to insist that the whole AfD is "spoiled" because of that. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what you said was that you wanted it merged. That might mean deleting most of the content, depending on the degree of the merge, but even if you just redirect it without merging any content, that still isn't a deletion. The content would remain accessible in the history. I understand that in usual terms you might see a pure redirect as equivalent to a deletion, since the content is not directly apparent in any article, but for WP purposes it's quite a different thing. Still, no, I don't think the AfD is "spoiled". My comments were for future reference. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless --- yes, you're right, there's no merge-and-delete. In the interest of avoiding an unproductive DRV debate, I think it's safe to assume that the merge-and-delete crowd is fine with merge-and-redirect; I know other AfD's have "discounted" merge-and-delete, but, come on, don't you think that's just process run amok? --- tqbf 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if I were closing this debate (note: I'm not an admin) I would have no problem counting "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect"; that's likely what they actually mean. Note however that those do not count towards deletion. Only "delete" or "delete and redirect" !votes count towards deletion (that is, blanking the history) -- all other !votes are arguments for some version or another of "keep" (even a redirect without merge is a "keep" for AfD purposes, because the history remains). --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just be happy to see what the consensus is here. I'd be fine with a merge+redirect (again: I want a delete) --- that's still one less page that needs to be policed for boosterism. --- tqbf 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention "newspaper". Were the United States Constitution given proper respect by the newspaper editors, &c., and were the public adequately informed, the politicians would be pressured to comply, the Law of the Land would prevail, and there wouldn't be any Ron Paul Revolution. Good thing Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The strongest argument to delete this article was that it was redundant. However, I think I've eliminated most of the redundancies with both Ron Paul and his presidential campaign article, making this a proper subarticle like several others that exist. This leaves some overlap with Moneybomb, which can be cleaned up through editing. Buspar (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st choice) or merge and redirect (2nd choice), but very strongly do not delete. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable, but at the very least it is a valid phrase for a redirect. Note that nearly all of the arguments for "delete", including the nominator's, are actually arguments for a merge and redirect: "suggest merge", "the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to" the campaign article, "can be contained in the presidential campaign article", "Delete and merge", etc. Merging articles does not require deletion or AfD at all, and an administrative decision would not have been necessary if the proper process were followed, and merging an article's content to other articles without retaining the edit history of the original article would violate the GFDL. This is the appropriate place for a merge discussion. By the way, the lack of articles about other campaign slogans (though we do have "Tippecanoe and Tyler too") should have no bearing on the existence of this article. If other slogans are notable then they probably ought to have articles too. I'm surprised that there is no separate article for the extremely notable "I Like Ike", though the Draft Eisenhower article to which it redirects is very much analagous to the Ron Paul Revolution article. This article isn't just about a campaign slogan, it is about a grassroots campaign which has attracted notice from the mainstream media. DHowell (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Arguing that since other campaign slogans don't have articles this one shouldn't exist is a logical fallacy per WP:OTHERSTUFF. So that's another argument for deletion that doesn't work. Buspar (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest re-reading the newspaper section, specifically: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." This article does not contain tabloids, announcements, or gossip as its main sources - they consist primarily of substantial sources of competent journalism. The "Wiki is not a newspaper" is meant to prevent sensationalist news on celebrities or "flash in the pan" attention getters (like that duct tape bandit fellow). Paul's sustained widespread coverage, as well as his status as a Congressman and presidential candidate, mean that documenting his candidacy is neither sensationalist or temporary. I'd argue, in fact, that most candidates should receive as thorough a treatment as Ron Paul has had. Buspar (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation, and hence the reason I made the statement I did regards the routine news coverage. I think the day-to-day routine reporting of a campaign for nomination, in and of itself, does not meet notability under this policy. If the campaign is revolutionary for introducing something new to politics, or if the campaign is especially historic, then its notable. This is not even a presidential campaign; this is a campaign to get a nomination. The person is notable, but this article amounts to political advertising. Further, there is the issue of being in the news for a brief period of time. This is subjective as it is written, but I think this is relative. This campaign has a fixed length (irrelevant of the outcome). Most political campaigns (certainly not all) do not have historic importance beyond their relatively short era. I interpret that to mean "brief time". If, at some time later, this campaign ended up influencing the outcome of policy or further politics, then a seperate article may be warranted. I see nothing in this article that amounts to the campaign being revolutionary, causing major changes to politics/policy in America, etc. Thus, I think a merge into the article about Ron Paul is the best outcome. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep since sourcing has been done. Wizardman 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Eddy Middle School

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

No assertion of notability per WP:N and no verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hall (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for athletes as laid down at WP:BIO". – PeeJay 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus (default to keep). Keilanatalk(recall) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter To God

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

An electronic Wailing Wall being promoted by its webmaster. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compton Fashion Center

Compton Fashion Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in California, page hardly gives any context. Only sources are unreliable and/or primary; a search for better refs found none; this place actually appears to be an indoor swap meet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oakshade, would you be willing to add to the stubby article (while this process is ongoing) with your research? I can honestly say I did not find what you found in my own searches, so I hesitate to add "history" myself. I can't read your LA times article without subscription or the Long Beach Prss-Telegram. It would seem that the "fashion center" has significance beyond "the mall standard" for its community stature and I would readily change my opinion to keep if the article was brought up to par. Keeper | 76 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Wesleyan University PhD productivity

Ohio Wesleyan University PhD productivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The topic of the article is non-notable and constitutes original research via synthesis of verifiable sources. BryanD (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: article appears to be original research. Mh29255 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dear Bryan Daniels, the synthesis section that you reference clearly states that "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. This claim has been published by a reliable OWU source. I am guessing that as an OWU alumnus, you may have seen this claim with recent sources published by research papers and Ohio Wesleyan itself. Therefore, it is clearly not original research. Let me know if you disagree or can't find the reliable source. I will be more than happy to help out. Happy Holidays! LaSaltarella (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I do not attempt to disparage OWU in the least, I am concerned that there could (emphasis: could) be WP:COI if this is the primary source, because when I read the article, WP:OR was screaming pretty loud in my head. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non encyclopedic content. Clear OR, and OWU talking about how good their faculty are is not an independent source. Nor is their listing as relatively high on lists of colleges reason for a separate article--just a sentence in the main article. this is spam: consider articles on "research notability of X university people," "teaching notability of X university people," "paper count of XD university people," "high school record of people admitted to X university" as potential separate articles. The effort would be much better spent writing individual articles about each of the individual OWN faculty who would qualify for one, on the basis of outside awards, and other demonstrations of status in their fields. Or start filling in the missing articles for those at List of Ohio Wesleyan University people. DGG (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a mess, any way you pull it. Spam, WP:SYNTH, WP:COI, WP:RS are all implicated. Perhaps merge with List of Ohio Wesleyan University people. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit ball

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

Notability not established. Ddxc (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation Study Bible

Reformation Study Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for books. In particular, I looked for reviews, but didn't find any that weren't self-published and independent except this rather trivial one. Flex (talk/contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UST V-League Roster

UST V-League Roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't see how a team's roster to a collegiate volleyball league even deserves an article. No assertion of notability and I very much doubt that there are third-party reliable sources to obtain in-depth information for this article. seav (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by NawlinWiki. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blatric

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

Originally tagged for CSD for nonsense article, both CSD and prod tags removed by author. Article is about a so-called "dance craze", obviously no sources to validate, no notability, possible attack article on the people in question as well. Please also see The blatric which is the same article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the mickey

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

Dictionary definition. Already an article on Wiktionary. kingboyk (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - its a slang expression with cultural implications, which can be elucidated/developed on. ShivaeVolved 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering Council election, 2007

Kettering Council election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Council elections for a local town (pop 86000). Wikipedia WP:NOT#IINFO does not house this much info. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added references and external links in multiple reliable sources including the BBC establishing notability. The election was at a level which is contested by the national British parties and does receive significant coverage. There is nothing in WP:NOT#INFO that prevents this sort of article - it only says statistics should have enough text to establish context for the reader which this article does. There is precedent for keeping a similar type of article (though a bit larger council area) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991 where support for this type of article was expressed. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Davewild for his comments, there is only a little I can add to that. It should be noted that there are, at least, summary council results available on wikipedia for a good number of other local authorities in Great Britain. In addition, Kettering Borough Council shares exactly the same area as the revised Kettering parliamentary constituency and that thus an understanding of local election results can give context to discussing national elections in the area. Chris nelson (talk)


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

The result was delete all. Sources indicating notability or verifiability were not provided. Participants in this debate are reminded that civility and brevity make for more effective rhetoric. Chick Bowen 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Astronomical Society

University of the Philippines Astronomical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school organization, which I'm quite sure has very little reliable sources to make it into a full-fledged article (I studied in UP and UP AstroSoc is only one of the mid-popular organizations in the university). seav (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the other non-notable UP organizations that I can find:

There are over 400 student organizations in the Diliman campus of the university alone. Practically every one of them is non-notable and would have very little reliable third-party sources to extract information from. Possibly the only notable organization in the university is the Upsilon Sigma Phi fraternity, whose alumni are notable in politics, particularly Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino, Jr., that numerous articles have been written about this fraternity. --seav (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all for lack of notability outside the University. Hey Seav, I think UP Sigma Rho is notable enough to deserve an article here. --Lenticel (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is something like a "List of student organizations of the University of the Philippines", merge it there. Otherwise, delete all. I am willing to change my vote on specific organizations if editors of the articles point out independent sources that talk about the organization. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There will possibly be a few articles for the most famous clubs at the most famous universities, but it would be very rare that such an article--or one on a local fraternity chapter--could be notable. if we need a specific guideline on fraternity chapters to prevent them, we can adopt one. Or we can do it here by practical consensus--I think it would take more than just notable alumni, but references to the chapter itself in significant non-university and non-fraternity sources. But whatever we think of them, for clubs like this, existing policy is quite sufficient to delete them. DGG (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- or at least merge. This opinion is for the titled article only. Somebody put quite a bit of work into this article. If the information in the article is correct, I'd be surprised if there is not published information in Tagalog or other language, which would be reliable source for us if it were available in English, possibly establishing general notability, though there would be the more complex question of what is notable for en.wikipedia. I see that the principal author was notified on user Talk. However, the timing of this AfD is unfortunate. Students at UP may easily be away from school at this time, and quite possibly completely away from computer access, so even attempting to notify the creator of the article before this AfD closes may be unsuccessful. Deleting the article before there is time for the creator to argue for inclusion, rescue the content for himself or herself, satisfy source requirements, and/or merge it to a more general article on UP organizations, seems rude. For what it's worth, User:Poldoga has not enabled e-mail. University of the Philippines Diliman, according to the WP article, has over 21,000 students, a "mid-popular" organization might have quite a few members. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to the multiple article consideration in one AfD, it can create a very substantial research burden, and, as mentioned, the reliable sources may be in another language, I don't know how we would know, without help, if there are significant references or not, Google may not cut it unless we search in the appropriate language(s). I'd say that much more time should be allowed, this AfD should be immediately dismissed without prejudice. Not all authors who edited the articles have been notified. I'm willing to volunteer to make extra efforts to contact those with interest in these topics (the authors or club contacts) so that they can prepare for another AfD when, I'd expect, it will come. There are six articles included here. Can I vote separately on each? If not, why not? Surely my opinion might vary from article to article. And I would ask those who have already voted, did you research each of the articles to confirm that there was no notability? Or did you assume that the information provided by the nominator was correct without confirmation? The nominator did not explain what research was done such that he or she could properly assert that the article "has very little reliable sources." How many does it take? DGG, if there is a general policy covering university clubs, where is it? --Abd (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the concern for the articles Abd but I think we should delete them. First of all, the nom and I were students from UP Diliman so if the organizations were notable outside the University, we would have already saved the articles ourselves. Second, if there were any sources in Tagalog that covers the articles, chances are it is on the University's newspapers. In my opinion, only AstroSoc and the sorority have the strongest claims to notability. However, Astrosoc is usually mentioned on newspapers but only in passing as they provide astronomical instruments for people whenever an interesting phenomena occurs such as eclipses or approaching comets and the University is a good spot for stargazing as it has wide open spaces. The sorority is a very old organization but without any evidence of significant alumni or contributions outside the University, I think it should be deleted regardless of age. Although they didn't meet our notability criteria, they could be transwikied to the GFDL-licensed WikiPilipinas where the information would be preserved.

By the way, I think this is the list that Polaron wants the articles be merged to.--Lenticel (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student clubs at a single school are virtually never notable enough for an article, and I see no exceptions here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unless the student organizations has reached fame or notoriety on the same level as, sa, yhe Oxford Union or the Hasty Pudding Club (at least, on the national/Philippine level, if not internationally), these student orgs don't deserve their own Wikipedia article...for now. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd suggest a different solution than deletion. Deletion makes the content inaccessible to any but admins. If, instead, the content of each article is deleted and the article redirected to the list, that content is still in history, Talk is preserved, and anyone can then retrieve content and re-use it where appropriate, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. These were not frivolous articles. If this AfD closes, and the closing admin deletes the articles, who, then, can help with retrieving whatever content might be worth saving, including making sure that those clubs are listed in the campus org article, with links? If redirection is used, instead, anyone could do that, at leisure, by looking at article History. The fact of redirection would be noted in the closing statement here, and thus some member of the Astronomy club who realizes the article has disappeared may be able to find it. If the decision is delete, here, I'd personally appreciate notice to allow at least a few days to help preserve content; if the closing admin decides on redirection as a solution, I'd be willing to do the work. And, frankly, what would have happened if those proposing this AfD had simply done what I'm suggesting. Far more efficient than debating it! --Abd (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the contents get deleted eventually, any member of the UP AstoSoc can later contact an admin to have the contents retrieved for their perusal. As for this AfD debate, what is being discussed here is whether or not these student organizations deserve their own Wikipedia articles under the notability guidelines, not whether the members of these organizations will be able to access the contents of the articles subject under this AfD debate. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern is efficiency and fairness. Redirection of the articles could have been done by the nominator, avoiding this entire discussion unless someone was watching the articles and objected. That's efficient. What we are doing here is debating what may be an entirely moot point. If they are redirected and nobody objects, we are home free, unless someone removes the redirection, in which case the one who did the redirection would routinely have the article watchlisted and could then deal with it one-on-one, requesting reliable source to establish notability, or with wider discussion (RFC), or with AfD (or beyond, if there is a serious dispute). This process here has wasted serious time. I've seen some admins start to suggest redirection in AfDs, which avoids the whole deletionist/inclusionist/notability debate. Disk space is not an issue. Admin time and editor time is an issue. Think an article isn't notable? Redirect it. You just might be done. It takes less time than filing an AfD, and you don't have to notify anyone. Notification to the author is (normally) automatic, through watchlist. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs exist for reason. If you don't want AFDs and just allow people to redirect like hell, place an MFD tag on AFD (oh, the irony! LOL). --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is not just one article here, and that so many seem to be focused on the one article is a piece of evidence for my point that combining articles for AfD muddies the waters. Someone might respond, "But we are establishing a precedent, i.e., if the Astronomy club isn't notable, neither are the others. No. AfDs establish no precedent or effective guideline whatever, the guidelines are clear about that. There is too much participation bias. Want to establish precedent, work on the policies and guidelines, or take something to arbitration, if ArbComm will accept it. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then place it one page, it's not that hard, if no one from the org wants to retrieve it after a month, it can be speedily deleted. If they do appear after a month, they can ask the help of an admin. It's really not that hard, especially if they really came from that org since they have a valid reason. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have simply blanked and redirected the pages myself, but the AfD notice asks that pages not be blanked pending the AfD outcome. What I would have done is to explain what I was doing in the Talk on the original pages, replace the content with a redirect, and then also place an explanation (one for the entire lot of articles) on Talk for the target page, showing a permanent reference to History of the last rev for each page before redirect. Same thing here, I'd put the ref. This would effectively delete the article, but leave it accessible for someone who is actively looking for it, and making it easy to either recover content or challenge the notability decision. And none of this requires administrator intervention, any user can do this, and any user can undo it; if users were sufficiently motivated to restore the article, presumably they would also be prepared to defend the article with some knowledge in a real Afd, i.e., one contested by knowledgeable parties, including, say, having ability to find notability proof in Tagalog, if it exists. Some of those voting here are UP Dilman students, but this does not necessarily qualify them to make ad hoc notability decisions, "I never heard of it," or "It wasn't important to me," are arguments to be avoided in notability decisions. Anyway, if admin closing this permits, I'd do the work, it's actually less work than dealing with an AfD.--Abd (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if you think an article doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, it's perfectly legal, and encouraged, to use the AFD system. We have the system already, so why not use it?
"I never heard of it" is a perfectly valid reason for AFD since it'll give you an idea of it's notability, especially if the person saying it actually lives in the place of the subject -- in case, the Philippines.
Now, if these 5 orgs get mainstream media sources (try Google News), then they can be saved. But if they won't, then it's off the AFD. Blanking and redirecting may not be helpful either, especially if the article you're redirecting to is remotely related to the blanked article. I'd rather have a red-link than make me think "Why does this redirect here?" --Howard the Duck 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's legal to use AfD and often a huge waste of time and no real benefit to the project. It should remain legal, but admins are perfectly free to close premature AfDs. Why debate something with no real opposition? (I'm opposed to precipitate deletion of articles that *might* be able to be reliably sourced, and nothing here, so far, rules that out. It would be ruled out if those with access to the reasonable sources were participating and failed. I have no specific opinion on whether or not clubs like this should have their own articles; it's at the edge of notability from my point of view).
)As to "I never heard of it," see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. This particular argument is so bad that I'm astonished it was advanced. UP Dilman is a huge campus, and a club could, in fact, be quite notable (on or off-campus) with a majority of students not knowing about it, not to mention one or two. "Living in the Philippines?" Let's see, I live in the U.S., is my personal lack of knowledge of a topic's notability evidence of anything? U.S. population, 304 million, Philippines, 87 million. Is this difference significant?
As to Google News, I found reference to the organization from a Philippines English source. Not currently googleable because the news archive was gone. I found it in the Wayback Machine and corrected the link in the article. That alone would not establish notability, but my point is that there may be quite a bit about this organization that would satisfy WP:RS, but not so easy to find if one does not know what to look for, even in English (the Wayback Machine is not yet searchable for text), but I'm even more concerned that there may be newspaper accounts in Tagalog that someone in Dilman could find, accounts that, if in a U.S. newspaper, would satisfy us as to notability. I am *not* claiming that these clubs are notable, only that we need better and more leisurely process to determine it. What's the rush? Why should we waste time on an AfD when the basic work could have been done with no fuss at all, and fuss later *only* if someone actually disagreed. The blank and redirect (or just redirect, why blank?) option in this case, for all these articles, is easy, it would be a redirect to a list of UP Dilman campus organizations (and I'd have a note on the Talk page briefly noting that this specific series of articles were redirected to that list based on apparent lack of notability, with an explanation of what to do if one disagreed). I'm thinking ahead to the encyclopedia truly being an encyclopedia for the world, in English, which is increasingly an international language, and current process will not come even close to cutting that particular mustard. It's far too inefficient and requires too much admin time (or, on the other hand, encourages snap judgments by overworked administrators).--Abd (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. There are over a hundred student organizations in UP Diliman, and not every organization is well known outside the University, even on the level of Metro Manila (i.e. the National Capital Region). AFAIK, some of these have existed even before Wikipedia came to being (I remember being asked to join the Tomo-Kai in the late 90s), so I don't know how many years do you intend to wait for one such newspaper report in Tagalog to come up (unless it's a press release from a racy tabloid that is more liberal in accepting paid press releases). Keep, no. Merge, yes or no. Delete, yes, unless each org gets a more substantial footing. --- Tito Pao (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Our country has both Filipino and English as offical languages. If there are reliable sources for these articles, they would be printed in leading broadsheets which are in English. These papers also have online archives. I'm in Diliman and the only papers that in Tagalog here are tabloids and one of our University papers. Tabloids do not entertain info about clubs unless you pay them in the classified ads or as Titopao said, press releases and Univ. papers are not independent sources. I'm also slightly offended on your comment that the majority of UP students don't know their own organizations. We might be a developing country but our communication facilities are not primitive. If there are any events inside UP, at least two Univ. papers (not counting the college based ones)are there to report it. The students also have online access both free and non-free inside the campus. Every semester there is a day that are dedicated to these clubs where they held events and seminars. Last time I checked students are required to attend these events. As I said earlier if you bothered reading my first comment, there's WikiPilipinas which deals in everything Filipino. How many UP students do you want to tell you that these clubs are not notable? The articles could be saved there but they have no place in Wikipedia. As for the redirects, it is a fuss. chances are these redirects would be orphaned and would bloat RfD and create stress for the overworked admins. It will also set a bad precedence in redirects for Univeristy related clubs. Should all clubs redirect to their school article? If not what makes UP special? Should we create dab page for these redirects when they pertain to multiple Universities?

Actually you're the only one who bloated this discussion and most of the people here are simply countering your comments--Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, very well said. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmph! Be that way. Look, if you think my comments out of place, why bother countering them? Surely the closing admin will see through it. However, I do think I've raised substantial issues. It's a bit frustrating that commenters who seem to be "countering" my comments -- aren't we trying to cooperate in building the project? -- don't seem to be dealing with the facts of this situation. The article authors are absent; those who actually care about the topic are quite possibly away from internet access at this point. With a little effort, I found one newspaper mention of the Astronomy club, just because it happened to have been Wayback archived, and I fixed the link in the article. If the authors or other interested persons can't establish notability, it's fine to delete the articles, but it looks to me like these articles were created in good faith (at least the Astronomy club one, I haven't looked in detail at the others). What's the hurry? Running out of disk space? AfDs do *not* set precedent, participation is far too spotty for that. In this case the redirect would be to a list of clubs on that campus, and, yes, it seems reasonable to me to have a subpage of an article on a University to have a list of campus organizations with links. The details don't generally need to be on Wikipedia *unless* a club becomes notable, and, right now, we have no way to determine that. If in a reasonable time -- which is not merely a week or two -- and after notability is challenged, no notability appears, then it becomes reasonable to delete the articles.
However, I'm suggesting that it is far more efficient to simply redirect all these articles. It could have been done by anyone, the nominator could have spared all of us this conversation by just doing it, and, if nobody appeared to defend the articles, it would have been done. If there were no appropriate place to redirect the articles, a page could be created in WP space that says "The topic of the article from which this was redirected was considered not sufficiently notable by an editor for Wikipedia to remain. The original article may be accessed (process description) and recovered; however, an editor recovering the article should be prepared to defend notability, see (Policies and Guidelines). I'm finding that merge is increasingly being done with AfDs. It's far less drastic than deletion, which wastes, and continues to waste, admin time. And anyone can do it.
You know what wastes time? A person who insists on saving an article he doesn't even have a clue what it is, plus not to mention what I did a few minutes ago undoing unnecessary addition of a copyrighted logo for decorative purposes. Admins are selected for several reasons, and one of those is the handle deletion discussions. If they don't want to do janitorial work, 1) don't be an admin, or 2) everyone should be able to delete articles. If you hate AFD, don't comment on AFDs. If you question the wisdom of AFD, why bother participating? You don't speak for everybody, and not everyone wants to redirect and create a bigger mess. Imagine the mess if the redirect article turns out not to be related to the article it is redirecting. What should we do? Of course a deletion discussion, which would've been done earlier. Now that's wasting time. --Howard the Duck 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it out of place for a high school student to comment on college-level club politics, although I think this now necessary seeing how much controversy this is generating. The question here hinges on two things: one, the level of notability of the organization and two, the question of whether or not that notability satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines on such. If notability guidelines (emphasizing the word guidelines) are by their nature subjective, then it is up to said editor to establish that notability for the sake of that article. Articles are established many times because of an editor's belief that topic is sufficiently notable for the sake of Wikipedia, and many times these "conflicts of interest" from other editors who do not believe that these articles are notable enough (whether empirically or otherwise) degenerate into AFDs like this one. Conceded that it would be very hard to make a concrete standard for notability as different people have different standards for it, but it should be the responsibility of editors to establish notability where others cannot, rather than harp on the non-notability of the article in question in an AFD like this one. --Sky Harbor 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no substantial controversy over the notability of these clubs; someone who thinks there is hasn't been watching closely. What is in controversy is process; that is, those who *might* have the information needed to establish notability are not participating and probably don't even know this is happening. Yes, it is up to the original editors -- or anyone who steps up to the plate -- to establish notability; however, it's common to allow some substantial time for that to take place. What's the rush? If these articles were about blatantly non-notable subjects, fine, though it would then not be necessary to AfD. Blatantly non-notable material can be deleted on sight. If the articles in question were redirected, the *effect* of deletion would be accomplished, but these edits would show up on the watchlists of any prior editor who happened to look, and an explanation of what happened to the pages could be placed in Talk for the redirected pages, it would likewise show up on watchlists. Why are we spending energy debating the deletion of marginal topics? I can say why I'm here, I'm concerned with process and I dislike trashing someone's work without giving them a fair chance to establish its value to the project, to the "sum of all human knowledge." I have a *small* evidence of notability for the Astronomy Club, I found with a little search, but that was only in English. (I fixed the link in the article.) I certainly can't search in Tagalog or Chinese. The club itself might have a collection of newspaper clippings. Or not. But, enough. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the text in the articles came from the orgs themselves, ergo, they'll have a copy of it. It looks like a generic "About us" section in a website. Again, if they'll need inquiry, they can ask an admin or actually anyone for access on deleted history. It's not that hard. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone follows through on that process, and perhaps they are unaware of how to do it in the first place. We can't presume everyone is a trained Wikipedian right off the bat. --Sky Harbor 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can re-create the article then someone will speedily-delete it, then there'll be communication between the parties, then it can be explained about the deletion discussions. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an alumni of the said university and as one who compiled a list of student organizations before (see [8]), I will stand by my assertion that almost all of these 400+ organizations are not notable enough for Wikipedia and that finding WP:RS enough to create a full-fledged article (as opposed to a list entry) is not feasible. So my reason for nominating is simply not because I think they are not notable enough but also because they won't have enough reliable sources. --seav (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Doctorfluffy (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacommunity

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Captain panda 14:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I do not think that this book is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Captain panda 14:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibran Burchett

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

While doing WP:RCP, I came across the subject of this article, User:Elohimgenius (AKA Gnosis), writing an autobiography. I came on a bit strong with him re the initial lack of sources but then discussed what he was doing on our respective talk pages. I warned him about WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:V. I told him I would give him a bit of time to make what he could of the article before I submitted it to the community. Here is what I see: While Mr. Burchett may be notable within his field, his only verifiable claim to notability of interest to this project is as the victim of an alleged assault on him by Wu-Tang Clan and his subsequent civil suit. That is not grounds for an article here. Mr Burchett's accomplishments in his profession are not grounds for an article here. The article contains a lot of material that might be of interest in our marketing article (were it sourced properly) but that is not grounds for an article here. The article contains what appear to be sources but they are general or vague and fail WP:V. The article does not assert notability beyond the Wu Tang incident. Alfadog (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete going through some of the references and it becomes clear that this article is not Wikipedia worthy. The references try and give the article validity but is miss-leading. Too many things wrong with this article and the information provided is questionable.--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what's questionable here. The magazine articles are properly sourced and the other references are to individuals mentioned in the article. My question here is if other Wikipedians have articles then they should all be deleted. I'm a known wikipedian here and my notability has been sourced in 5 articles in noteworthy magazines? The Source Magazine, Fast Forward Magazine, and 2 YRB magazines. I only write articles in magazines for celebrities and that is one of the things I'm known for in addition to what was quoted above my notability in my field. Saying the message is misleading is vague. How is it misleading, had time been taken to review the sources. You will see my notability. No one has once said they researched my articles written on celebrities. I strongly question whether just internet searches are being used to justify notability. There are Wikipedians that are known, such as I, whom have been editing for awhile that are not notable outside Wikipedia. Then there are people who are notable such as Bert Padell who is an account for all the stars and maintains an enormous memorabilia collection whom do not have an article. I am not making any boastful claims I am merely stating my notable involvement in a notable movement. The projects we were working on were gave birth to today's models of internet marketing, SPAM, Ring Tones, and mobile text messaging. These things grew from our techniques used. I would say if this article is nominated for deletion then every Wikipedian who has a page should then be deleted out of fairness. I followed the guidelines as requested.

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: 

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

--Gnosis (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Search of Google Scholar and Google News Archive turns up absolutely nothing. We must also delete claims exported to other articles, such as that Burchett is a creator of "memetic engineering", which from the literature appears utterly false and self-serving. The violations of policy here are quite egregious. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after rethinking the entry I will resubmit once all sources have been published online and verifiable online since everyone appears to be only googling as a means of research. In addition I will be nominating any other Wikipedian Biography article for deletion in accordance with what is being suggested here in fairness.--Gnosis (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex The Soccerbear Cast

Alex The Soccerbear Cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a hoax article, can't find anything about this topic. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh did i mention there is zero google hits? So it's definitely a hoax. Also delete Sonic And Alex At the Athens World cup and List Of Alex The Soccerbear Episodes. Doc Strange (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Center

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

Very stubby article on a dead mall in Fresno. Claims to be the first mall in the city, but I can't find a single reliable source to verify this claim. Furthermore, the mall's size (460,000 square feet, according to this) puts it well under the super-regional classification that is commonly accepted as a criterion for inclusion. The fact that it's been partially converted to government offices is also of little relevance; many other dying malls have resorted to filling vacancies with office space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said a historic site, that would imply something totally different. No, what that Cite does explain is why the area, the mall included, is collectivly called "The Old Fig Garden neighborhood". Something that no other area is called, and somewhat notable. I also did mention that more Cites should be found. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about charisma

List of books about charisma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of books with an arbitrary word in the title; we might as well have a list of books about grass. Habashia (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Gurling

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


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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. JERRY talk contribs 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightwave (TV character)

Lightwave (TV character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(View AfD)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is right and this character really only appears in one episode, then delete (or very weak merge). Whatlinkshere shows she is only mentioned in passing in Iceman (comics), so her notability (which is not established in the article) can't be very big anyway. – sgeureka t•c 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: - significance is non-tranferable. Although an episode may be significant, that does not mean that the individual characters featerured in each episode are also significant. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Restaurant

Crystal Palace Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable restaurant per WP:N and no references provided per WP:V. Also potential WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Design Panel

Dungeon Design Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a panel assembled by a Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) magazine to judge the 30 greatest D&D games of all time, for their November 2004 anniversary issue. It lacks historic notability, being basically, an ad-hoc group that existed to create one feature article, in one issue of a single fan magazine. A quick google search shows the panel did not have any other significant existence, did nothing else, and the (very few) references to it are either echoes of our own article, or a few blog entries discussing that issue. A search for the feature by its title also gives very few results, namely the publisher's website, Wikipedia mirrors and echoes, and a few blog/wiki/forum entries. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: suggested at Talk:Dungeons and Dragons that this should be noted in a sentence or two in the D&D article. Perhaps best to redirect to D&D? FT2 (Talk | email) 18:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball keep, eight valid "keep"s in as many hours is obviously a case for WP:SNOW. As Lankiveil said, nobility usually equals notability; furthermore, sources were added to the article during the discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph Hood, 1st Baronet

Sir Joseph Hood, 1st Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Baron, without sources and already speedied once. I cannot find any sources on the man, and am not sure if he is/was even notable even if I could find some. Jmlk17 09:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Prophets

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

Notability in question. A google search for "Space Prophets" yields 62 results, most of which originate from Wikipedia, or do not reference the subject of the article. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC.
I am also nominating the following related page, which is an album by the band:

Akiro's Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

sparkl!sm hey! 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican In Name Only

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

WP:NEO, WP:BLP, WP:V among others Uncle Bungle (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a neologism, which as we all know should be avoided. I realize it is popular in the "blogosphere" but presently blogs are not the definitive source for the English lexicon.

The section general criteria lacks sources and therefore should be considered at best original research. In fact there are only six sources cited for the entire article, less than one per section. Two of those six are from blogs, which are considered self published sources. This has been a point of contention since the 2004 AFD and has not been addressed. It is unlikely that detailed, reliable sources will ever be found for this recently coined and undefined term.

Labeling individuals as RINO (but not limited to) Michael Bloomberg, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel without citing sources is a violation of biographies of living persons. In that regard it is impossible to list any individual here as their accuser may be incorrect. In the words of Jimbo Wales We must get the article right.

Similar articles have survived AFDs, they should be considered separately. This article may have survived previous AFDs but I strongly urge you to consider that in the past three years, it has not improved.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are people called RINOs without citation, then that should be either cited for or removed. But clearly, something like Human Events is a rock-solid citation for this sort of thing.
BTW, I count 15 citations, but perhaps most were added after this discussion was started. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much concern over the whether it should be deleted based on what type of word it is? There are far to many cases of deleted articles that are perfectly relevant and accurate. This article is good. It definitely complies with the rules for deletion. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep We need to be careful about associating anyone as a RINO and make sure that it is a well-sourced accusation to a notable source. However, the subject is itself obviously notable and encyclopedic with many sources discussing the term. There's no NEO issue since we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the term. I believe that covers everything. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* I agree whole-heartedly with the above editor, JoshuaZ; also, consider that the RINO article is balanced by the existence of the DINO article, and that to delete RINO may lead to the deletion of DINO. Regards. ProfessorPaul 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The enthusiasm for this article is encouraging and embodies the spirit of Wikipedia. Please remember that AFD is not a vote. Any AFD for "DINO" was for that article, not this one. However popular the phrase is in the "blog-o-sphere", it's still recently coined and not discussed beyond various weblogs and editorials of political pundits. Wikipedia is riddled with articles which define terms while circumventing WP:NOR by piecing together bits from different reliable sources. Has anyone written a book or article exploring the phenomenon of "RINO"? I'm afraid "The Drudge Report" or "The Daily Kos" is not in the same league as the Kennedy School of Government. I'm looking forward to the final judgment on this. Best regards. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to undo the cut-and-paste move with a trivial edit history, and preserve as a plausible typo. –Pomte 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incorrect page title name. Correct page title exists Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem NorthernThunder (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect & Delete - I could see some people misspelling the name of this movie in this manner (as apparently the article creator must have. After the redirect is installed, the article has no purpose. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts

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

This fictional rod has no real world notability outside of the D&D Greyhawk in world setting. There is no information regarding this fictional object independent of the subject causing a failure of WP:FICT. Additionally, real world notability cannot be established whatsoever. Additionally, this is and always will be nothing but plot information from D&D without any relevance or notability in the real world. Pilotbob (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, isn't four weeks an exceptionally brief period to leave between nominations for deletion? But taking this on face value, let's look at what we have. An artifact described in Gygax's first TSR dungeon supplement and one of the tiny few to have appeared in all three editions of the D&D DM guide (there's your real world significance right there). Could use more sourcing. I think a merge to some sutable target would be acceptable but deletion would remove significant information about D&D. I'd honestly back a keep here because it shouldn't be too difficult to find more real world context. D&D isn't that insular these days. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive repetition per Renominations. Nominator may also be gaming the system by nominating on Christmas Eve. Perhaps nominator's account should be blocked during the Christmas period? As for the article in question, it has good notability and sources. The deletion proposal is really just Bah, humbug! :) Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD had no consensus and this is no more notable than it was previously. Pilotbob (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have not actually been reading the article or the changes made since your Pointy re-AFD. If you believe it is so, then work to improve it, otherwise leave it to people that actually want to do the work and understand the subject matter. Web Warlock (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can show how this article will have real world context and not fail WP:Plot. 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (unsigned comment by Ridernyc at 11:58, 24 December 2007 BOZ (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Colonel Warden. Also Comment: I don't think this qualifies Pilotbob for a block. The first AfD was from someone different (though he voted "strong delete"), and it's the only AfD he made today (he made three, I take this back, he should be watched, but not outright blocked). If it stays that way I don't see the disruptive intent. --Arcanios (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's bad form to renom so quickly, but while we're here I think that it's worth pointing out that this particular artefact does not appear to have any notability outside of the D&D universe. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a roleplaying source book. Lankiveil (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep with the proviso that it needs to be expanded and/or cleaned up to a great extent. The article is marginally sourced, but while the primary sources of the original game guides are only evidence of the fictional items existence, notability is barely established by the Dragon Magazine article. No, it's not the New York Times or WSJ or New England Journal of Medicine, but within the context of D&D, Dragon Magazine is the pre-eminent periodical. (e.g. a featured article about a game in PC Gamer is a starting point for notability about a video or computer game, likewise a featured article in Dragon Magazine is a starting point for an article relating to D&D fictional subjects).
Now, all of that said, it is only a START and enough for me to say the article should be given a chance to be improved, but this does not at all mean I feel it's enough in the long term for a wikipedia article. This needs work, serious work, in demonstrating a unique notability of the subject within the confines of the D&D category. Is this the ONLY item of it's kind to continuously be referred to over decades? Is it the MOST WELL KNOWN example of such a fictional item? And beyond all of that, can evidence of its special nature be demonstrated and footnoted beyond one secondary source to a small print fan magazine? Otherwise we're back to playing with the Pokemon Test, where any and all game items try to base their notability on the existence of this, let's be honest, very weak article. It should be kept since some people have shown a willingness to improve it so far, but this is a sorry article in need of a great deal of work. Six months from now if I saw an AfD on this article with few improvements or no better sources, I would happily shift my opinion to a strong delete. My "Weak Keep" is based on potential, not actual, value (apologies for wordiness) -Markeer 13:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As a reminder, that 'past concensus' was: 'no concensus'.
  • Comment That's great, and I happen to agree with you, but if that's the case, it needs to be stated in the article with meaningful citations as evidence that it's true. "Everyone knows this is true" is not a valid argument on wikipedia. This encyclopedia is not about what's true, it's about what can be verified. -Markeer 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What "everyone knows" does not require verification. Indeed, demanding source for what "everyone knows," is disruptive. I didn't see anyone here, however, arguing that something should be accepted because "everyone knows this is true." As to the argument, if, indeed, something is common knowledge among those who know a subject, "everyone knows" can be used as an argument against an apparently disruptive demand for source. If it's true. That is, the lack of source for what "everyone knows" may simply be good writing, we do not put references on every comment in an article when the comment is not controversial. But I only add this here as a comment on the assertion, it's not really relevant to this particular AfD. (If everyone knows a thing, then it is easy to verify. Ask anyone. In the case of relatively obscure topics, ask anyone who knows the topic. Is it better to source things, even when they are common knowledge? Depends. Depends on how reasonable is the objection that a source is required. Is there reason to doubt the common knowledge? --Abd (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was resolved not more than 4 weeks ago. The nominating editor is trying to make some sort of point and is going beyond the realms of being civil. If you need more reasons why it should be kept, copy and paste all the reasons we gave last time, they are all still valid. Web Warlock (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment all the 'keep' reasons given last time were not enough to provide a concensus for 'keep'. And there has also been time, admittedly not a great amount of time, for those who supported 'keeping' the article to find independent sources that would make the article meet WP:N, yet none have surfaced.
  • Keep. On the previous AfD I took a "weak delete" line, but this renomination reeks of WP:POINT. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - and nominator should be warned of WP:POINT violation. [Added afterward]: The closing admin. will probably note that several of the "Keep" !votes, including my own, primarily mention the potential WP:POINT violation as a justification for speedily closing this discussion. There are, however, enough ignoring the obvious bad form and commenting on the article itself, which is a good thing, and there are still significant keep-favoring editors either way. I also want to add "per my arguments in the last AfD" for the record. ◄Zahakiel► 04:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy keep Per above. Jtrainor (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no real world significance or WP:RS outside of the source books for the game, what is it other than game guide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [Special:Contributions/207.69.137.8|207.69.137.8]] (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A description of an artifact found in a fictional world, one described by standard fiction as well as sourcebooks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I've played the game for years and still it's only WP:Notable for D&D players and fans a small subset of the general public. Wikipedia is not a guide and this can be found in the Dungeon Master's Guide or at an external Wiki like D&D Wiki. Refer to the deletion discussions surrounding the Star Wars individual items and Wookiepedia. Star Wars individual items and minor characters has much greater and wider general appeal and did not survive much of those AfD arguments so why should this badly written stub about a D&D specific magic item survive? This item fails the WP:PTEST and at best could be included in a D&D Magic Items page. Alatari (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I didn't realize that 1 month was a short time for renom. That being said not everyone celebrates Christmas and find Dec. 24 and 25th excellent times to work on Wikipedia. This decision doesn't have to be made in a week. Alatari (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources were provided during previous Afd. Edward321 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while there are now primary sources, there are no independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N.
  • Procedural speedy keep regardless of article merits - which I'm in favor of, anyway - renominating rapidly with the same arguments in the same situation bases decisions on tenacity and luck, rather than article merit. That's not something that Wikipedia can withstand. Local specialists, volunteers all, cannot be expected to work on the topic in such conditions; "work on" includes making sure the quality of the topic is maintained and dealing with the problems that caused AfDs in the first place. To admonish and then allow it will still be in favor of it. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The procedural issues about not renominating in a short period of time are all about not rehashing things, whether the result is keep or no consensus. Note that if WP were a bureaucracy, everyone would have been out of the office on Monday.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Renominating for the exact same reasons in so short a time is highly unusual. In any case, this is one of the iconic artifacts in Dungeons and Dragons from the very early editions and is significant enough to merit an article. --Polaron | Talk 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KeepDelete votes based on an imaginary distinction between the "real world" and the shared reality of published fiction and games are misquided. Notability is the issue, and there are countless articles on Wikipedia that are properly here and which are of interest to far smaller groups than the D&D player community. (The D&D player community, though, probably does not need this article, it is for the rest of us, so that we might understand some possible literary or other allusion -- perhaps a conversation we hear -- to the Rod of Seven Parts.) Repeated AfD in a short period is abusive, wasting a great deal of editor time to defend articles that could be spent improving them.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, that is not true. Dragon is now a third party publication, RPGNet is an industry leading website for critical (and not-so critical) discussions. There are other references, not yet footnoted but in the article, that are also third-party. Web Warlock (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pazio was the officially licensed publisher - hardly an independent source.
  • Actually it is. It has it's own editorial review board that is independent of Wizards of the Coast. Plus it has been established in many other articles that Dragon and Dungeon qualify as independent sources. Web Warlock (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paizo is an independent company, and acquired the license to publish the magazine for 5 years. During that time, Paizo's in-house writers, and freelancers, supplied all the content. Wizards of the Coast, who owned the license, had final say on approving the content, but did not tell Paizo what to write as I understand it. Iquander could better answer that one. BOZ (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether concensus has decided that Paizo publications qualify as an 'independent' source (and if the information above is correct that WotC had final say - such consensus would be wrong); the particular Dragon articles cited for Ro7P article are from before Paizo became involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor correction OK there IS _one_ independent source used (RPGnet.com), not zero as I stated above. However, this "source" currently mentions 3 artifacts, but NOT the Ro7P, so it is not providing any support to claims of this article's notability.207.69.137.41 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is misguided in stressing the fact that this is a "fictional rod" and therefore has no "real world notability". Many staples of fiction (including such fictitious objects as the Sampo or Tyrfing) can nonetheless have real world significance that is symbolic or cultural. The Rod of Seven Parts does have such cultural impact. It has remained a staple of its genre for nearly thirty years, longer than just about any other comparable creation; it has been the subject of magazine articles; a derivative novel has been written about it twenty years after its first appearance in another literary form. Freederick (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I think it is scandalous that another delete request should appear so quickly after the first, and that is should appear in the midst of the holiday season, when many editors take a break from Wikipedia. I find it very difficult indeed to assume good will under those circumstances. Freederick (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claiming that there can never be sources for something is a blatant violation of NPOV. It is not the place of anyone but an expert on the matter to be able to make such a statement. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or people with a crystal ball! (which is also another D&D magic item, by the way, and therefore not notable. Can we make that article and then delete it too?) BOZ (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's any need for such a sub-article to Crystal ball, as anything related to D&D and Crystal balls would more than adequately fit in that one, which it rather sparse right now. However, there is no equivalent article for the Rod of the Seven Parts, which is a unique artifact as opposed to a generic item. Now there might be some artifacts in the D&D mythos that merit articles and also function as Crystal Balls, but the only one I can think of is the Dragon Orbs. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my sarcasm generator must be on the fritz! ;) Need more sarcasm! These dull AFDs need more humor... I'm falling asleep as it is. BOZ (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is a bad way to make an argument on Wikipedia, all you end up doing is not being WP:CIVIL. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. In plain English, I guess what I was trying to say is that claiming there "will never be" sources for something is like reading the future, or using a "crystal ball" - one of the things that wikipedia is not. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are going to delete fictional artifacts, why not start at the top with Lightsabre? How does Lightsabre have any "real world" importance outside of the Star Wars universe? Furthermore, how does something like Victorian Essential Learning Standards have any "real-world" relevance outside its own world? Has anyone in the general public who is not from Australia ever heard of Victorian Essential Learning Standards? The last two questions were rhetorical and ironic, not literal. Compsword01 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think it would be more productive if some of these people who know very little about the world of the RPG and its historical/social significance would pitch-in and help strengthen articles instead of lazily asking for deletion. Many of the people who do support these RPG articles are not especially good at putting two words together in a critical, analytical way. They are often more passionate than factual or bureaucratic, which hurts the articles and adds fuel to the fire for deletionists, elitists, and those who would dismiss the RPG genre out of hand as "trivial". Strengthening these RPG articles with historical information is not easy, as much of the supporting data that appeared in large or even smaller publications (third-party, or otherwise) was printed on paper, and between 1973 and the mid-1980's. The people who have of late who made it their mission to eliminate RPG articles of course know this supporting information is all "analog" paper data, and is unlikely to surface. They use this weakness as a point of attack and as a leverage bar to have their way and "win" some deletion requests. However, the fact that these printed reviews and commentaries do not exist online or in any other electronic form does not eliminate the significance, impact (culturally/socially) or scope of these RPG items in any way. For example, even my childless aunt knows what the Monster Manual is. The job for Wikipedians is to take that level of awareness and quantify it with sources and background perspectives that are tangible and verifiable. That my childless aunt knows about the mentioned manual is significant. There is some reason why a person who knows nothing of the RPG world would know what a Monster Manual is. Somehow, the manual broke free of its fictional environment and penetrated the culture at large, if only in name. Like, perhaps, LaserDisc players: Millions used them, but few know about them now, and even fewer still have ever seen a LaserDisc player in action. Does this dismiss the LaserDisc as an item that never had relevance, simply because it is less relevant today, or less relevant to the larger populace who never used a LaserDisc player or ever even saw a piece of LaserDisc media? Reinforcing that, who do you know that is not aware of the term Dungeons and Dragons, or what D&D is? You would have to have lead a very isolated life or perhaps live in some non-industrialized society to not ever have heard of D&D (or Star Wars, for that matter). Wikipedians who support RPG articles have plenty of precedent to get these articles saved. The task for the RPG community on Wikipedia becomes, find a way to get this information online, in some electronic format (since that appears to be the only "reality" acceptable to many here, which is odd since Google is not an accurate reflection of reality). Find a way to bring quality, non-fanboy editing into these article. Recruit some university faculty. God knows there's many a PhD who has spent (and may still spend) the long, long hours sitting around a table with Keep on the Borderlands and a giant bag of Doritos. They know the situation. Find these people and put them to work. Bring authority to these articles. Thanks for reading. Compsword01 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not take an expert to know that Lightsabre is notable, because it is well known outside of Star Wars, even by people who have not seen the film. However it seems that the Rod of Seven Parts is not known even amoung so called experts, who have not been able to provide any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What we are seeing is RPG endless stating that every single item in D&D is notable; today it is claimed that the "Rod of Seven Parts" is notable, next it will be Rod of Thirteen Parts etc etc. In my view, this article needs to be transwikied to Fancruft.net or some other game guide where game players can find this information easily, as it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how antagonizing fellow Wikipedians by accusing them putting every single item in D&D into Wikipedia, at the same you demonstrate your ignorance by making up the Rod of Thirteen Parts instead of, say, Quaal's Feather Tokens, helps anything. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, to continue on the tangent for a moment... Notability is not determined by whether something "is well known outside of" its element. In fact, the Lightsabre article does not include any reliable secondary sources, and does not assert its own notability. Most of the links there are to fan sites. It has been tagged as such since August. Obviously no one has fixed in that time because it can't be fixed. Therefore, it should be deleted as non-notable fancruft. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are literally hundreds of thousands of artifacts in the many worlds of the Role-Playing Game. In Dungeons & Dragons alone, when you consider the endless manuals, arcana, and supplemental publications, you are probably dealing with at least 10,000 or more artifacts since the early 1970s. Of these, only a handful are as legendary in the sphere of the game as is the Rod of Seven Parts. Not all D&D artifacts deserves a page, nor even a mention in the most obscure article. But some, like this particular rod, are pivotal bits of lore, not merely a wand of continual light, or what have you, nor more than the One Ring is a hobbit pipe. Compsword01 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - added more including a novel based on the Rod. Now getting ready to go through some old magazines. Web Warlock (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warlock, if you or someone else has the time, could someone add some info on the Ro7P boxed set from the 90s? I'm feeling that there should be more info on that set in the actual article. I think I mentioned this during the last AFD, but no one's had a chance to fix this yet. BOZ (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can. I want to add it, but if I run out of time I'd rather add something from White Dwarf or something from one of the independent magazines from the early 80's. I seem to recall Judges Guild having something on it in thier magazine The Dungeoneer. Web Warlock (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per consensus above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are adequate and sufficiently independent. But Compsword, since many sources for articles like this are on paper and are very rarely found in libraries, it might help to include key excerpts from them either in the footnotes or at least on the talk pages. It will be easier to accept your expertise , and easier to improve the articles, if we have more to go on. Please don't assume we know about them and are ignoring them. DGG (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Added one more reference to the Rod of Seven Parts boxed set. With the box set, the novel, coverage in every edition of the D&D game and magazine articles this make the Rod the most covered D&D artifact there is. In fact it may even be unique in this respect with only the Wand of Orcus or the Dancing Hut coming close. Being covered this many times in multiple types of publications should be in and of itself merit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Web Warlock (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beltar

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

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is only a plot summary. Fails WP:FICT due to lakc of secondary independent sources. The problems with this article cannot be resolved. Pilotbob (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is, there is no Suel pantheon article, which is why I suggested List of Greyhawk deities for the merge destination. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the exisitng Greyhawk deities article is a list and would be hard to put text in there as it would make it a very long article indeed - a subarticle would allow for the text to be conserved. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but would the article have to be created before the merge, or would the article be redirected or what? BOZ (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is sourced. Did you not see the "references" section?--Robbstrd (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources found in that article independent of the subject. Pilotbob (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YuYu Hakusho abilities

List of YuYu Hakusho abilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Solely plot information for the yuyu series. No stretch of the imagination could establish a real world context due to a serious an unresolvable failure of WP:FICT (lacks secondary reliable sources independent of the subject), WP:NOT#PLOT (this is only plot information from the series), and lack of independent verifiability. Also, this appears to be either original research. Pilotbob (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into the list of characters. But as for the arguments, First, plot is different than character. A list of character traits is exactly what can help to illuminate the otherwise confusing articles about plot, but they are basically different aspects of fiction. anything that may be said in the guidelines about plot applies to plot. Not characters, not their properties and behavior, not setting. Indiscriminate does not apply to a list of all the more significant characters in fiction--I doubt its applicability here anyway, but it appears that only the ones are being discussed about whom there is something to say the opposite of indiscriminate. Trivia does not apply to a list of the characteristics about a work of fiction; it would apply to trivial references unrelated to the work. Putting this sort of detail --however appropriate-- in the main article is not necessarily a good idea--most such merges either result in unwieldy articles or lose the information. But there appears to be almost total duplication with list of characters. A minor edting matter which should never have come here. DGG (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree, a list of attacks, which is what this article is about, is a very good example of trivial and indiscriminate information. Also, since the article covers these attacks from an in-universe perspective, doesn't describe any real world context, and relies entirely on the work itself, it is a plot summery. To say that because this is related to characters and not the story, it therefore can't be a plot summery is utterly ridicules. In fact, character related articles are much more then likely to violate WP:NOT#PLOT then articles on the work itself. --Farix (Talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YuYu Hakusho chapters

List of YuYu Hakusho chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an episode guide, nor a list of indiscriminate information. Also this article doesn't really contain any information Pilotbob (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even though the title of these articles says "chapters", these pages pretty much just focus on things at a per-volume level. It's pretty comparable to a list of episodes. It's a reasonable depth of summary that also has the potential to include other real world facts about the manga. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note for the record that the nominator does not know what he's talking about, as he is claiming that an article about a comic book series is about a television series. Futhermore, a list of chapters/volumes / episodes/seasons / players/teams / and/so/on is EXACTLY the sort of encyclopedic information that is a) not indiscriminate, in that it's very precisedly defined what's included, and b) is strongly desired by the relevant projects overseeing those sorts of lists. Not to mention strongly desired by Wikpedia, given the number of such lists are listed as FL. Strong keep and a strong request to the nominator that he Pay Attention when nominating. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's understandable that the nom did not know what exactly was going on, giving that the article is so bare, and that many people are not aware that YuYu Hakusho was a manga before it was an anime. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that "manga" is in the first line, the headings are by numbered volumes, and the title has "chapters," I find it hard to believe that anyone who is taking care wouldn't be able to tell this article is about a print rather than a broadcast medium. This nomination does not show signs of being made with due consideration. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a time I didn't know what a "manga" was, but I knew what anime was. *Shrug*. I've talked with a lot of people that "sort of" understand anime, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think it was just a minor misunderstanding. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and reformatted the entire article. It still needs expansion and filling in of the details. But given the track record of similar lists, there is good reason to assume that this list has the potential of becoming a featured list. --Farix (Talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Kept. Nomination withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Tzvi Hersh Weinreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community leader. No google indications of notability, google news hits are all him commenting on events, no coverage of him as an individual. No outside sources. Mbisanz (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the head of the Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox organisation in the World. Lobojo (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My blunder, the article now asserts and sources it notability in terms I can understand. Sorry for the confusion. Mbisanz (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rent (albums)

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

Article is nothing more than a list of songs from the Rent musical soundtracks, which violates policy at WP:NOT. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be fine and good, but then there should be some information out there to establish notability ... for example: that it is an album that has charted for an unusually long period of time. My searches do not turn that up. In the absence of that, the article is nothing more than a repeated directory, and that is specifically verboten by WP:NOT#DIR. If the importance of this album (independent of the musical, which has indisputable notability) is notable, then it should be easy to find information on it besides a track listing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to www.billboard.com and searched for "rent". I may have read the information wrong; apparently, as of 1/17/07 it was #15 on the Top Cast Album Chart. It peaked at #2 and was on for 47 weeks. To get more information requires a subscription.
I created this article by forking this information from the main Rent article, as I thought it was repetitive and unnecessary. I hoped that someone else would come along and add some actual information, but no one has. I fear that if this article is deleted, the information may creep back into the main article, which is actually coming along rather nicely. —  MusicMaker5376 17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll admit that it looks better, but I still don't see why the few extra tracks and notes cannot be included in the article on the musical itself? I'm still not seeing how this album meets WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MUS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musical is certainly notable; the composer is notable; the actors (for the most part) are notable. Ergo, the album is notable. Again, this article was forked from the main because it made it entirely too long. Merging it back is a bad idea. —  MusicMaker5376 03:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with what you are saying, and if you added the whole list back to te article, I wcould see it being long, but a small section highlighting additional tracks should cover everything without unduly adding too much length to the article. I did read the WP:MUS section that you are refering to, but I think cast albums would be different? In the spirit of notability not being inherited, I'm not sure that this follows. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should cast albums be different? It's not like these albums didn't sell; the notability stands on its own. They were charting TEN YEARS after their release. That's not notable? —  MusicMaker5376 13:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My line of thinking: Individuals or bands may produce many different albums, each one with different songs. A cast album for a musical essentially produces one album, and that is all that will ever be produced (I know, there can be a reordering of songs, songs can be deleted/added over time as the production changes), so in my thinking, it is a slightly different entity than say an album produced by a band. I think these differences can be noted in a short section within the article without adding too much to the length of the article already. As an aside, if I were looking for song information about Rent, I would look for the musical, not the album. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then your argument is that every cast album is inherently NN, which doesn't make any sense. —  MusicMaker5376 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. If the album were otherwise notable, then I would think it warrants an article. From what I am seeing, this article was forked simply for length, and not for notability. From what I see, the essential information can be readded to the article wihout adding substantially to the length of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that it charting for ten years is not notable enough. You've said that it being a recording of one of the most popular musicals of the late 20th century is not notable enough. In your estimation, what would make the recording of a musical notable? —  MusicMaker5376 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing (and only one thing) that would make it notable is any citation in this article that would fulfill WP:V to support notability as an important album. I've heard that it has charted for ten years, but I see no evidence. If you look below, I am in doubt that being a cast recording, even from a notable musical, fulfills the album requirements at WP:MUSIC LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only citation I can give without buying a subscription is this one. It's only for the highlights album and doesn't paint the whole picture. —  MusicMaker5376 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I, with resepect, disagree. WP:MUS claims that albums are notable if the individual or ensemble are notable. While Rent(musical is certianly notable, the cast of the musical (who recorded the piece) is not notable per Wikipedia (there is no article on the cast of "Rent"), and while a few members may have been notable, they are not inherently notable as a group. Aside from that, the album would need to stand on its own to meet notability requirements, and I'm not sure that, aside from Billboard rankings, there is much sustained coverage to meet WP:V on its own. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying a "supergroup" like Oysterhead isn't inherently notable. That's a group comprised of three notable members of other groups. Regardless of what they've accomplished, the formation of a group (with a name, rather than just getting together to jam) is notable. If those actors' notability comes from what they've done, and the recording is the physical manifestation of what they've done, the recording is notable. —  MusicMaker5376 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The musical Rent is highly acclaimed, with a huge number of very prestigious awards, including a Pulitzer. Since the music is a major part of a musical, I don't think its a stretch to say that the album, with works by the cast, even if not as famous as the musical itself, is certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion here.  The Steve  06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Moon

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

Cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to meet WP:RS and WP:FICT. Additionally, contains no real world context whatsoever and cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia policy. Contains only plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If we are to follow WP:AGF, what evidence do you have to support this uncivil comment?207.69.137.39 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It appears that no other editors have voted for a keep.--Habashia (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment does not address any of my concerns with this article. Simply accusing me of bad faith will not help you keep this article. If you want to keep it, make a policy based argument. Pilotbob (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Robert Krueger

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

Minor writer, did not win a major award or establish lasting contribution to field. Strong POV and weasel words, but not much in the way of biographical description. Mbisanz (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Jain

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

Subject does not meet WP:N. Specifically, coverage of the subject was WP:N#TEMP, and was for one reason only. Aside from brief mention, I think this is covered by the spirit of WP:LOCAL. Some of the better articles sustaining notability are from the contests themselves, or their sponsors. The article has existed for almost a full year, and has had little editing except for vandalism. I do not think this article will be expandable beyond current content; at least for several years, if at all. Prior outcome was "no consensus". LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ho

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

We're told that Ho is a commercial photographer. His own website suggests that he's a photographer second and the proprietor of a commercial photography company first. The scale of the company would make it unusual, though nothing else about it is obviously noteworthy. (For all I know, it got big and stayed big thanks to excellent work, sensibly priced; and Ho himself is first among equals of first-rate photographers. I'm not criticizing either the company's work or his.) The problem is rather that this article has been unsourced for ten months, and obviously so. People have fiddled with it during that time, but they haven't touched the Sez who? templates with which it's liberally splattered. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well argued nomination. Subject would fail WP:BLP; scores 216 Ghits, the vast majority are directory entries. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I went through the Google hits, and while most of the first ones to come up were directed to his studio, others confirmed that he is a published author on the subject of photography, and has a strong connection to a technical college ... in addition to what appear to be "numerous celebrity clients." I am a little shocked that there is not more information, but if I am reading this right, deletion is not the proper way to get something cleaned up. What I am concerned about with the sources that I did find: Do they qualify as genuine enough secondary sources to establish notability? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is indeed not the proper way to get something cleaned up, but it is an appropriate way of dealing with articles that look as if they'll never been cleaned up. ¶ Celebs: north America is crawling with them. ¶ Notability as a photographer: Has he had any notable solo exhibitions, or are there books devoted to his works? ¶ Do your sources qualify? For what my own comments on their suitability would be worth, I can't make those comments till I see what the sources are. Why not edit the article to make it more credible, or at least specify the sources here? -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not critical of this article being up for deletion. I am not critical of anything here. I find it odd that there seems to be a lot more out there on him than his own website seems to imply (the opposite of a vanity page?). I lack the expertise in photography to really judge if the sources that are out there are legit sources. I could see it either way. I also agree: 10 months is a long time to go without some sourcing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as per LonelyBeacon, and considering there is no deadline. --Arcanios (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is indeed no deadline. But ten months have gone by as a few editors have made changes here and there without sourcing the material. How much time is needed for this? Or could it be that there are no sources? Even Ho's own website says almost nothing about him. (Incidentally, WP:DEADLINE is a mere essay, not a guideline.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [User:Arcanios|Arcanios]], my read of there is no deadline leads me to the opposite conclusion as you. To me, the essay is clearly saying "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established" and to work on an "article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality". That process did not take place here. Moreover, if we are to read this essay as a caution to wait before deleting an article, as you suggest, how long should we wait? In my opinion, this article has been given plenty of time to improve. The first PROD request was made in November 2006 and a second request was made in Feb. 2007. My request for sources was posted in Feb 2007, and little progress has been made. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another small point: "weak keep as per LonelyBeacon" is slightly odd, as LonelyBeacon is neutral. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the opposing arguments of the three editors above. As it stands the article has no third-party sources and unless there's proof of multiple non-trivial reliable published sources, we should just delete it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. However, since a redirect to Desktop Tower Defense seemed reasonable, I made one, and since there seemed to be no pressing reason to delete the underlying history beneath the redirect, I didn't. If anyone knows a reason to do so (such as a WP:BLP problem) let me know, and I will. Chick Bowen 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Preece

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

Subject does not satisfy notability guidelines, he is known only as the developer of a single popular Flash game. radimvice (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn per the links provided by Clarityfiend. None of this information is even mentioned in the article, and I am about to fix that. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren O'Neill

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

I initially thought this article should be kept since this boxer was considered for the Olympics, but with only three bouts so far, he is a far cry from any title. Delete without prejudice against a future recreation. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, with all of the requirements for restoration that a deletion under that policy implies. This article is not a biography. It is not even a pretense of a biography. It is a news article, plain and simple, reporting arrests and charges. It is sourced to 8 news articles, spanning just 2 and a bit days, that cover a single event. In Wikinews terminology, it is a straight news summary, or synthesis, article, synthesising a single news article from 8 news sources.

Our policy on single events is clear. We cover the event, not the person. We certainly do not misrepresent the arrests of eight people, and the indictments of several organizations, as being a biography of just one of those people. I am unable to find any actual biographical information on this person after doing some research, and no editor below has presented any after being challenged to do so, which leads me to believe that a biography can not be written here. The claim that this person was a publicly documented figure before this news story broke is unsupported by sources. I am unable to merge, to refactor, or to rename the article into an article about the case, as I have done in several past situations like this, because there is no publicly documented case yet. There have been no convictions. There has not even been a trial. There is no publicly documented subject for an encyclopaedia article.

Our policy on what the encyclopaedia is is also clear. Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikinews is thataway, and n:Eight men and several Spinka charities charged with tax fraud in Los Angeles awaits the attention of the lost journalists wandering the encyclopedia in search of a newspaper in which they can write a news story about a single event. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naftali Tzvi Weisz

Naftali Tzvi Weisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has nothing to do with his biography or person, just a single story. Looks more like once agenda to put this story on WP. He is not notable enough to have an article of his own, but if a normal article about him is created I don't think I would object. Shmaltz (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material this should be deleted.--Shmaltz (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CSD#G10--Shmaltz (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP--Shmaltz (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These policies are not relevant here. Are the NYT and the LAT "poor sources"!! BLP is only a problem when there is poor sourcing and that certainly does not apply here. Lobojo (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply a ludicrous nomination. The man is a Hasidic Rebbe, with thousands of loyal followers. The man has been notable for years as a major Hasidic rabbi and player in the Yiddish speaking world. For such a prominent religious figure to be charged with laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through charities in a major FBI bust makes him notable beyond the Jewish world where he was already very notable. Note the reference include links to full length by-lined articles in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Lobojo (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the nomination, the problem is that the article was created just for that one story and still has only that story in there.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so feel free to add more BIO information on him. There is nothing wrong with that. It would be very good if we could source more details o nhim and his activities. Lobojo (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just because there is good story that you want on WP doesn't mean that it gets onto WP, even if it's because he is noted. In it's current form it doesn't qualify as an article, and violates WP:BLP. If you can't find sourced details on him, then perhaps he is NOT as noted.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is a major figrue in the Jewish world. This in no way violates BLP. It has the very best of possible sources, including the nations two most prominent newspapers. Lobojo (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but only for that story, not for who he is, but for what he is. Because he is not notable, but his job is, which makes for an excellent story, but not on WP.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you suggesting - an article on "his job" and another one on "the scandal" but nothing about him? I am lost. Lobojo (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No he is notable as a Hasidic Rebbe. A sort of autocratic ruler of a large group of loyal followers, and as the CEO of a conglomoration of charities, schools and yeshivas under his groups control. just for that alone he is notable. Lobojo (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No he is NOT notable for any other reason than his arrest.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO no, he is a mojor hasidic rebbe with a large following and tremendous power and financial and reliigous clout, and that alone would make him notable. Lobojo (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source???????--Shmaltz (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is in the Hamodia every second week as well as the various Yiddish lnaguage papers. He barely speaks english himself and has no presence on the internet. I think you actually know that he is notable Shmaltz. Lobojo (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very regretfully and with sincere and heartfelt understanding for my good friend User:Shmaltz. While the article is now about this very sad story of Rabbi Weisz's arrest that is being splashed all over the media and that in and of itself cannot be ignored at this time (perhaps in a year or two this story will be deemed insignificant, but unfortunately at the present time it is making big waves in the world media and we cannot adopt the strategy of ostriches here, sticking our heads in the sand.) This rabbi is also notable as the leader of the Spinka Hasidim and could easily have had an article about himself for his notability in the Hasidic world prior to his unfortunate arrest. The article should and could be improved by adding non-controversial information about Rabbi Weisz's accomplishments in leading his community, its educational insitutions, and no doubt the great deeds of goodness and kindness that he has done for most of his life. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With great regret, and with respect to User:Shmaltz, understanding that an event like this is never a good situation, the article satisfies Wikipedia policies for notability and verification so I see no basis to delete it. As the grand rebbe of a significantly sized Hassidic group he is independently notable in the Jewish world, and for very unfortunate reasons he has become more notable in the outside world as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as a Hasidic leader, plenty of references and verifiability supplied in the article to that effect. Lankiveil (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Tarver

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

Maybe not notable, college basketball player. No references or sources, just one sentence, infobox, and a few high school awards.   jj137 ♠ 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Let's wait for him to either win a college-level title or be drafted in the NBA before creating an article on him. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to meet minimum standards for WP:BIO regarding athletes, and has no other support for notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion, the user's {{hangon}} reason was "Seth Tarver has amazing potential as a basketball player. He is the lead scorer so far in the 07-08 season for OSU's Beavers as a sophomore." The author probably knows Seth. Article fails WP:BIO as well. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As Wikipedia's unofficial OSU representative, I can attest that Seth Tarver probably isn't notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. I personally believe that no NCAA athletes should have a page unless they get at minimum All-American status or something equally notable. However, Mr. Tarver currently meets the minimum Wikipedia policy measure for keeping, however unfortunate that is. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Taylor, a nearly identical person in terms of status and what they have accomplished (which ended up as a keep). I would like to see this article deleted, but only if similar people's pages are deleted as well. What I don't want to see is a double standard, which deleting this creates after keeping the Bryce Taylor article. In terms of sources, it would be quite easy to find media coverage. The relevant portion of WP:BIO states: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." This has been interpreted to include NCAA athletes, however much I disagree with this absurd level of inclusion. VegaDark (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bartell LaRue

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

Non-notable voice actor. 6 star trek voiceovers and 13 total appearances in film is not notable. No indication of large contribution to genre or top-status in profession Mbisanz (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per changes made to the article after nomination. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School

The article was renamed after this AFD was started. The Old name was Crispus Attucks Elementary SchoolJERRY talk contribs 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD tag removed without comment. This elementary school was named after a notable person, but the school itself fails WP:SCHOOL. Delete. The article as it existed at the time of the nomination did not establish that we are dealing with a special school. Which changes everything. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - First, let's everyone keep things nice and friendly, as in WP:Civil. Second, the single reference is absolutely out of the bounds of WP:V. That is a study that had nothing to do with the school itself. The school was used as one of three subjects regarding magnet school and the comparison to other schools. Any magnet school could have been used for that study. Just because it happened to be this one, does not make it any more notable. WP:V requires that the article be focused on the subject, and that you don't start connecting the dots from the article to the subject, which is what I am seeing with this reference. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please recheck this. It is actually a comprehensive study of the only three magnet schools in the communication and magnet theme as of the writing. It compares and contrasts this specific school to the other two, and also all three of them as a group to other themes of magnet schools, and lastly all magnet schools to comprehensive or traditionaal curriculum schools. The source is not related to the subject, provides critical commentary (both positive and negative), and mentions it non-trivially. This passes WP:V as far as I can tell. JERRY talk contribs 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:V is not, I suggest, at issue here. What is pivotal is whether there are multiple sources to meet WP:N. The abstract says "A formative evaluation documented the progress made by three elementary schools (Crispus Attucks, New West, and Troost) during the second year of implementing the communications and writing theme ...". Of course any school could have been chosen but these three were chosen and since the report evaluates them it is an entirely permissible reference. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - the school is the subject of a published report. In addition there have been controversial incidents here, the court case two down, here, here etc that provide the sources to meet WP:N in addition to the notable alumni above. TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TerriersFan, assuming good faith, here, check those links, because only one of them links to anything related to the school, and that is to a commemoration ceremony by the school district. As they are, I clicked on them, and they were filled with fragmented stories that had nothing to do with the school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading the same article? Please go back and read it often, it is evolving. JERRY talk contribs 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - upgraded !vote in the light of phenomenal work by User:Jerry who by supplying multiple, independent, verifiable sources has achieved compliance with WP:N and beyond. TerriersFan (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wow! This article has been improved dramatically since nominated at AfD, with props due to User:Jerry and User:TerriersFan for basically rewriting the article. The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral numerous tangential references added. Charlie Parker might have attended the school, but he did not credit the school with any influence on his development. Encyclopedic content could be transferred to a district article and elsewhere. I recommend that this case not be taken as a precedent for what would be enough to retain an elementary school article. But at present, since so much work was done on the article, I'll change my opinion. But I would rather see all elementary schools consolidated to their district pages. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted. Wizardman 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text2Speech

Text2Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The topic of the article is not notable. It is not a widely used program, and has not gained enough public knowledge and interest to have an article. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War (video game)

American Revolutionary War (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is advertising for a non-notable RPG. Neither the article itself or the links provided give any indication of notability. Half of those given are either run by the article creator or associated with him, and google returns nothing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hope u don't mind, but I invited some of my fellow gamers here to help convince u otherwise.--Xgmx (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG I love this game--68.228.47.249 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)— 68.228.47.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
ya me to, so I'm defending it--Xgmx (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, a Google search of "American Revolutionary War" +video game brings up no relevent results. Hell, I can't find evidence that this game exists anywhere other than the website of the developer. Also, there may be a COI since the creater of the article wrote 2 of the 3 reviews listed on the games official website: [17] (both of which are from sources i've never heard, and the SS Free one is a teen blog). TJ Spyke 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • wtf is ur problem, everyone else is against u and someguy, how do I know ur not someguy on a diff account?--Xgmx (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem, you appear to have anger problems (just by looking at your talk page). I am not someguy and never even heard of him before this AFD. Please read up on guidelines and policies, stop removing the AFD notice from the articles page and stop attacking other editors (not just here, but on your talk page too). TJ Spyke 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Fuenzalida

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep She has the scene from Broken on her reel on-line and it is not an extra (fyi extras don't get credit in the titles of movies or television). She was also in Aaron Spelling's 10-8 as Mrs. Barrahona. When I first started this article there was a link on a website to her work in Chile, where her work as Soap Opera actress was noted. This link was since "cleaned up" since it was no longer available. Is there prejudice against foreign actors who don't have all of there projects on WP, and just because they aren't on American sites and search engines?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tag teamed by User:BlueAzure & User:EdJohnson for weeks now. User:EdJohnson already put an Afd on the article, and when his didn't work out the way he wanted, he convinced User:BlueAzure to put another Adf, on Christmas Even no less. Look at the article history.
Here's the tag (literally) team history:
User:BlueAzure first put me on a COI notice board under a complaint for MetaphorEnt along with a lot of other editors, and didn't notify any of us on our talk page.
User:EdJohnsonjoined the discussion and once other editors agreed there wasn't a conflict with the article I started. User:EdJohnson responded by putting on an Adf tag on the article (along with several others) I started without notifying me (or the other editors of the other articles). Several editors thought the article (and the others) was legit and helped to clean it up and removed the tag.
User:EdJohnson wrote that he wasn't satisfied then blamed me for using two accounts HollywoodFan1 and SJR2008. He then wrote "Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the false alarm. EdJohnston" when I showed him his mistake.
User:BlueAzure then put the sockpuppet tag on me. The sockpuppet for overturned as "nonsense".
User:EdJohnson then convinced User:BlueAzure to put another Afd tag on the article I started, since his didn't work out.
User:BlueAzure has been targeting me, along with other editors with several tags, trying to get us all off Wikipedia, even though we don't even know each other. I don't know if he has a beef with he clients of the Management company he's targeting or against me as an editor personally, but these Adfs are part of a string of WP:Stalk User:BlueAzure has been attempting.
Conduct versus Harassment

Are there any guidelines prohibiting users from placing multiple and duplicating tags on multiple articles, talk pages and boards targeting the demise of an article or fellow editor?

I've tried to be civil, by asking them for help and for advice, but they just continue to WP:BITE. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no strong argument why this should be deleted. If the argument is resubmitted, with something substantial, I may vote differently. Wikipedia rules do not dictate that we remove articles just because someone does not like them.Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per smith. Ombudsman (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. The consensus was that there are insufficient sources to establish notability. Chick Bowen 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimah Adams

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with 2 appearances on television shows.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Fatimah was a child star, known for her show "Kid's Break" on Fox Network, which she was on for six years (this is on her WP article). This is pre-Google or major internet. Although her credits on-line are this she's got celebrity. See wireimage.com, only known people get invited to these red carpets. Acording to WP:Bio celebrity is inclusive for validating an actor.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me and the article I started along with MetaphorEnt and the clients they manage for weeks now. This is part of that WP:Stalk. See Mimi Fuenzalida Adf for more details.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no reliable sources at all. In closing the AfD, and noticing that HollywoodFan1 has voted above, I urge the closer to take into account
These findings suggest the possibility that the nine accounts mentioned in the COI report are actually HollywoodFan1 plus eight sockpuppets. I don't see any multiple voting in this AfD but it does reduce the credibility of any assurances that could have been made by HollywoodFan1. It should make us wonder whether unsourced statements in the article are actually correct. EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already voted above. Just wanted to bring to attention that I took it upon myself to add references that I found on Google to this article. That should suffice those voting "Delete" just because there was a lack of sources. I find this article to now pass WP:BIO. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ybbor. The references there are for the two minor appearances, and I don't see any reference for the kid's show. -Lciaccio (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep arguments failed to turn up substantial non-trivial coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Lukich

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

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show and a role in a non-notable direct-to-video movie.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Milena Lukich also has a credit on the major television series "The Shield" as Albina. Acording to her article, she had a career in previous war torn Yugoslavia. Is there prejudice against actors from foreign countries just because their body of work isn't known to Americans and they don't have WP pages up. With what her country has been through, it's no wonder she is here trying to start a new life, but shouldn't we know what her history as a talent is even though it's not on the net and not American?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me and the article I started along with MetaphorEnt and the clients they manage for weeks now. This is part of that WP:Stalk. See Mimi Fuenzalida Adf for more details.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See below. Per WP:Bio, Ms. Lukich does not yet meet Wiki notability guidelines. Here is, in my opinion, the most applicable part of WP:Bio:
Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

To me, she clearly does not meet these guidelines. If HollywoodFan1 could show references where she meets these guidelines, I would reconsider. A brief GS revealed nothing notable. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tanthalas39. In reading Milena Lukich's article today, I saw her original name was Lukic. In googling that, I found that Milena Lukic(h) is also a Musician, published writer & filmmaker, in addition to being an actress. Here are some of the links. I'm trying to help with these articles because I feel strongly that BlueAzure has a beef with the company that represents this actor based on all of the steps they have taken to invalidate all of their clients. I am not I the entertainment industry and have never met Milena Lukich.

Musician: [18] Writer: [19] Filmmaker Actress [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Again. As with the article I started, foreign actors/artists should be treated with respect as to the work they did prior to coming to the US as being valid work in the arts.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No sources. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Time Tour 2006

AfDs for this article:
This Is My Time Tour 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article offers no sources. I find it hard to believe that this tour ever occurred. I am a big Raven-Symoné fan and have never heard anything about it, and surely it was not sold out. As if this weren't enough, the article looks like it was written by a 10-year-old (as all other Raven-Symoné-related articles do), and is not only inaccurate but quite blatantly false. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, seems to be a hoax. I couldn't find a single source about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it does need to be rewritten. At least some parts are true might be true as a Google search turned up these sites that have that same list of tours. Deflagro C/T 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you serious, well your obviously not a big Raven-Symone fan, if you never herd of the tour, Everything written is true. I actually attended a concert back in 2006, and took notes. But I don’t have the time to go search for a links, but ask any Raven fan site webmaster and they will tell you indeed there was one, this is not a joke. Also this article has been up for a while now and all of a sudden you have a problem with it. Although I do agree it can be rewritten. And the tour was sold-out Raven stated it in an interview (it's not like she was doing huge venues to begin with), Rhythmnation2004 you're full of it, and you clearly need to watch Raven on TRL back in March 2006, when she stated it. Some fan you are, HA hypocrite, if anything needs to be deleted is that fourth studio album article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenfan4ever (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Polhill

Simon Polhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sedition (australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy and prod were both removed...doesn't pass WP:BIO, makes no assertion of notability. SmashvilleBONK! 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webgame with no assertion of notability, not yet released. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Patriot

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

Contested prod, future game release, no notability asserted Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Marks

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

Doesn't pass WP:N or WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (no consensus).   jj137 ♠ 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janesville Mall

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

In its current state, this page is quite indiscriminate in nature (the study about right turns is a neat, if unsourced, factoid). Beyond that, some sentences are POV ("financial pressures from a weakened economy" and "...land-locked store at Beloit Mall was now unbearably cramped" for instance)... and on top of it all, I can't find a single source to verify any of the information contained here. (The article has two sources, but one is from the mall owner's website.) The only sources I could find reporting on the mall were trivial in nature (e.g. opening/closure of a store at the mall). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve - the sources are there, but I don't currently have the time to integrate them myself. Calling an article "indiscriminate" and "a mess" is vague - provide constructive criticism and specific examples, not blanket statements. Finally, if you don't like the prose - or believe it to be POV - you have stated a desire to be an editor, so EDIT IT. Deletion is a ham-handed technique for effecting change. DiogenesNY (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Bradford City kits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Gallery of Bradford City kits, I have decided to nominate this gallery for deletion. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Relevant kits or significant changes should be included in Bradford City A.F.C.#History or History of Bradford City A.F.C.. Most kits pictured here are simply redefinitions of an existing pattern. This is common among football clubs, for merchandise reasons. AecisBrievenbus 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete all.   jj137 ♠ 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Princess vs. Da Baddest Bitch

Diamond Princess vs. Da Baddest Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about non-notable mixtape by Trina. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Admc2006 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail notability:

Rockstarr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rockstarr Royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cheers, thanks. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it so funny that anytime I either add a page to WikiPedia or even edit a page, it gets deleted. I source, I clean it up, I do everything told to do, and it still doesn't cut it. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other pages that remain up that do not even have ONE sourced material.--FSX-2007 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Lanterns

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

Article looks like a hoax. The external links point to nowhere relevant. --Ouzo (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenkojuku

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

This article does not assert notability. It is a small number of local karate dojos, which do not have any sort of notable influence. RogueNinjatalk 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Although it was me who requested proving notability of the article, I believe the school may be encyclopedic. First of all, Kenkojuku has dojos in different states, so saying that it is "local" is not entirely justified. Also, it is more notable in google than shotorenmei or "North American Karate Do Federation", not to mention "American Shotokan Karate Federation", which we list in shotokan. It definitely does exist, is a particular shotokan school with dojos in more than one state, and (better than some others) does derive from Funakoshi's direct student who, at first glance, is notable (and thus his own federation may be worth mentioning at least in an article on him). I suggested to RogueNinja that the author of the article (who is a newcomer to Wikipedia) should be given one week to improve the article and add external references and sources, but apparently this request was refused. As a result, I have to vote to keep the article, as all in all I believe it will be worse for Wikipedia to lose this information, than to retain it (although, perhaps, rather under Tomosaburo Okano than the other way around). Still, I do agree the article needs improvement and notability needs to be proven. Pundit|utter 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a couple of things... Someone mentioned that I was the owner of the dojo - not the case, just a student for about 17 years. I know that this style is a direct descendant form Funikoshi, but as with a lot of the martial arts around traditional styles, documentation, especially online documentation is very hard to come by. I am interested in working on this article further, but my time is limited (yeah, I'm sure that's been said before...). So, if we can keep it as is for now, I will get back to it and make a best effort attempt to beef it up further. Note: I am not adverse to keeping the content under a page for Okano if that would help. Thanks for your patience with me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregmarch (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an assumption you're a dojo owner because of this, but I understand you are a dojo's webmaster then. Please, do expand the article, but first of all add external, reliable sources to the article - Wikipedia cannot take any claims for the facevalue. Even common knowledge must be supported by references. Pundit|utter 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having studied Shotokan Karate for over 40 years and being quite familiar with various styles of Karate my feeling is that the article should be kept. Kenkojuku dojos, and students of Kenkojuku dojos can be found worldwide. Sensei Okano was a genuine Karate Master. He and his students never abandoned traditional karate training and values. Sensei Okano's students are among the very best Karate practitioners in the world, some recognized through tournaments, magazine covers, etc. most taking a traditional path (practicing, teaching but not exploiting the art through sport karate or tournaments). Because of their focus on “traditional karate” many of his students are less visible than the household karate names such as Chuck Norris. However, if one were to actually observe Sensei Okano’s students level of skill compared to some of the Karate household names one would be stunned at the degree of excellence of Sensei Okano’s students who seldom seek recognition. I believe the references to Sensei Okano's students should be limited to his direct students. If we go a generation after his direct students the students would number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.

The reference, “Some of his most famous students outside of Japan are Masters Takeshi Akuzawa, Toyotaro Miyazaki, Kazuo Kuriyama, Masakazu Takahashi, Koji Sugimoto and Minoru Horie.”, should be kept. Masakazu Takahashi is now Head of Kenkojuku in the US and Worldwide and should be clearly mentioned. The others in the above reference were or are important students of Sensei Okano and deserve recognition as well.

The last reference Sensei Andrew Faupel at the end of the article with pictures comes across as an advertisement. Sensei Faupel with all due respect is not one of Sensei Okano’s direct students. His lineage would fall underneath Sensei Takahashi. It is important to represent Kenkojuku which has a significant place in the history of Karate in the US and Japan and now Worldwide. However we don’t want the article to be an advertisement for a specific dojo.

J.Pilgramson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.13.6 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you write is true, you will find no trouble with confirming these claims by referring to reliable third-party resources (martial arts magazines, books, journals etc.). Without such even the sentences that may be perceived as most obvious can be challenged and removed. The article does not cite any sources and a such is not fulfilling Wikipedia standards. Pundit|utter 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and change name to Kenkojuku Karate Association. Enough coverage to claim noatability as shown here [26] Shoessss |  Chat  13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if we are to keep it, Kenkojuku is a much more intuitive name, and there are no other kenkojuku associations/federations, so there is no need for distinguishing this way. Pundit|utter 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Whether the article should be moved is outside the remit of AfD. Kurykh 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Sorry, I have to try again, getting this non-article deleted.

It got worse.

Whereas arguments can be provided (not all good ones IMHO), to keep articles about notable crackpots, I don't see how their "inventions" can become encyclopedic -- at least until reliable, third-party, sources and presence in mainstream media come into play.

But this current article is just a distilled backup copy of JosephNewman.com.

Yes, there is media presence demonstrated in the article, but it describes the inventor, not the invention.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ:
I'm not sure how these sources can point to a distilled "backup copy" of JosephNewman.com.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. self description of "Beyond Invention": Beyond Invention is a series about the scientists, inventors and researchers -- a biography source, but not a source which tells us about the workings on an electric device -- some IEEE or IET jornal article would be called for.
The wipo.int link doesn't help at all -- patents aren't sources for anything, except the date a patent claim was filed and granted.
The Science News article would be a fine biography source and is a good a but singulat third party reliable source for anything about the device, the efficency. That's fine. But it doesn't say a bleep about the alleged working and buildup of the machine -- which is as of now the central point of our non-article.
--Pjacobi (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This renom is null via WP:NOTAGAIN Doc Strange (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what you've linked? --Pjacobi (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: The pictures provided are original research by Kmarinas86 himself. --

What pictures of this electric motor wouldn't be? We're just going to leave the article without pictures of what the motor even looks like?Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research#Original Images.Kmarinas86 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very, well. But how do you assert equivalence of your demonstration model and Joseph Newman's? Your model and photograph would be fine illustrating a simple DIY DC permanent magnet motor (demonstrating that it is not necessary to reverse the current flow, but only to switch it of for 180°). Or do you claim to have observed over-unity-performance and mass loss? In fact, as Newman's motor distinguishes itself only by the immaterial claims, it is hard to get a photograph or image of any sort capturing this. It's like trying to photograph Holy water to show its different to plain water. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that in previous versions of the article, the caption said the model is "a replica" of the Newman machine. Restoring that wording would help. -Amatulic (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move back to Joseph Newman (inventor) - The article was moved on 11 December. It should be moved back. As regards notability, Newman and his invention are one entity. The invention is not notable of itself, but as a part of his struggle for recognition (if I threw in "quixotic", would be over the top?). Seriously though, there is no point in having an article about the invention but not the inventor. --Alfadog (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons in the prior AfD, which are still valid today. I don't care what the article is called; inaccurate naming isn't a reason to delete. The point is, this is a notable invention (whether it works as claimed or not) that achieved national attention, both by the U.S. government and the media. So Newman is a crackpot, big deal. He's a notable crackpot, and as such, Wikipedia needs an article about him and his invention. The article's title should reflect the majority content of the article; if it focuses more on the man than the invention, then rename it. I'll note that Pjacobi nominated this article for deletion before. That's fine. The nomination failed for good reasons. However, nominating it again, after the article has been improved significantly, seems like tendentious axe-grinding to me. -Amatulic (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back, and possibly rewrite the article a little so it is about him. He is a notable crackpot. I dont think the machine is separately notable. His notability is a combination of the machine, the theory, and the court case. DGG (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_24&oldid=180018907"