Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperHeroHype.com

Questionable notability, lack of secondary sources, and the page seems to be a target for disgruntled members of the forum to air out personal vendettas. Also, when it was proposed for deletion, the page creator said he/she would add information proving notability, but that was months ago and it was never done. *one more night*^{talk/contribs} 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, independant sources, so I don't see how this subject is notable... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards keep My initial reaction was "delete", but the site isn't exactly small - there's site member reviews going back 4+ years. Lots of articles about this and that, albeit lots of Google ads. I can see deleting for lack of secondary sources, but I think the site has notability simply because there's a lot of information on it and a lot of folks seem to use it. While third-party sources seem to be limited to the gaming/fantasy movie world, there are quite a few other sites that reference superherohype.com.Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this is fairly prominent website, with exclusive news and interviews for Comic Book and Fantasy related movies. The page is often source by sites as newsarama, darkhorizons and comicbookresources. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Website has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable site, one of the most famous alongside Ain't It Cool News and IGN. Alientraveller (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informative about website and its members from an objective angle, regarding the Boards and the former member Cristo

MrWotUp (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards keep per Tanthalas39. I think deletion policy says it best. If in doubt, don't delete. There's enough doubt here that makes me believe we shouldn't delete. Hiding T 16:42, 23 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 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouse house

Doesn't seem like a notable genre. Has no sources and is possibly original research or fabricated. Cannot find any reliable second party sources that mention it. --Neon white (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of evidence thst scouse House is an established genre. Many record labels (including All Around the Word, Xposed Records, D&G, Bouncin Tunes & many more) have released records in this genre. Many music stores (Online & Highstreet stores) also sell scouse records (Juno, HTFR anyone!?). Scouse house is quite young, but that is no excuse to ingonre it's exsistence. Nigel A. Cryer, Burnley. 17:00, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.110.163 (talk)

Unestablished non-notable genres that have no reliable coverage don't belong on wikipedia. There are no major online music stores that recognise this as a category. Buzz words that exist in a small locality and are used/invented by small independant labels aren't notable genres. Anybody can invent a term to refer to what they regard as a seperate genre. If there is reliable evidence then add it to the article. Claims of evidence isn't enough. --Neon white (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced neologism. No evidence that this is an established genre. If reliable sources could be cited, that would be one thing, but this article shows no evidence of such. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's time to start taking a hardline on music genres. No sources, nothing that really distinguishes this from other forms of house music, many notability and original research issues here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were a form of the rock'n'roll it would still be a mistake. Lacks credibility and is not Big Band-y enough, dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-established music genre in the North-west of England with many well-known producers and artists (see Ultrabeat for example and most releases on AATW include some form of scouse mix). The majority of nightclubs in Liverpool also play it as their main form of music. I'll put up some samples if that would help? I'm also looking for sources but they're hard to come by... :) Richsage (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it is established is irrelevant. What matters here at Wikipedia is whether it is documented. This is an encyclopaedia and we aren't in the business of documenting the undocumented. We aren't in the business of inferring a new genre of music that is heretofore undocumented, from examples or otherwise. So to make your argument hold water, please cite some of those sources. I and other editors have looked and we haven't found any sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply - a few published sources that mention it in passing can be found at [1] (page 120), at [2] (page 118), International DJ magazine April 2004 (online version [3]) and a Reuters Paul McCartney interview at [4]. I'm not sure whether these would class as appropriate enough secondary sources due to the lack of information within them (save for the mention of the genre), but there seems to be a dearth in books or published material that goes into more depth, given that the genre is relatively new (in comparison with other, more widely-available genres) and has a tendency to be localised to the north-west. I'd be grateful for your opinions on the above? Thanks, Richsage (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, see I looked over the sources, and it looks like you hit the nail on the head with the problem. So, lets say I want to know something about this musical style. Lets say I want to look for a description of the style. All I have from these sources is that it is a form of house music, and it is "bouncy". Not much to build an article on. If there does not exist a discussion of the source in any real detail outside of Wikipedia, then anything put INTO Wikipedia becomes original research and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia compiles already published information; as Uncle G says, it should never be the first place such information is published. If this article stands, it appears that it WOULD be the first place it is published. For what it is worth, I did a search at [www.allmusic.com (go to advanced search, and search under "style") and they have bubkiss on this "Scouse house". Allmusic is pretty much comprehensive, and if they don't recognize it as a style, its probably still fairly fringe at this point. Keep looking; if you can find a source that says "Scouse house is charcterized by yada yada yada..." that actually explains what it is and has some depth to it, you may have something, but I don't see any of that now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont believe you can create genres based on localities, there's little evidence of it's existance and even less to prove it differs in any way from basic House music. Every band from every local scene likes to think they have a seperate style but generally the only difference is the locality in which it is being played in. The only real artist of note mentioned in the article is Ultrabeat, who's sound can be more accurately described as Eurodance as the sound is rooted are largely in the German dance music scene. --Neon white (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's had long enough. Nothing concrete's been to done to demonstrate its veracity. 86.134.198.192 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Od Mishehu, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn valley elementary

Unsourced, nonnotable school. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as a group/association/whatever with no assertation of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nonnotability, unreferenced Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:32, 18 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in the European Union

The article is redundant, because the information is covered under military service, and it's nonsensical, because conscription is a purely national competence. Sure, we could have articles on conscription in all sorts of supranational blocs (NATO, ASEAN, OAS, AU, etc.), but really, why should we? Biruitorul (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A case could be made for this on the basis of steps toward an EU military with the RRF but it's really a step removed from that and there's no clear relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered by other articles. The article conscription already has a list titled "Countries with and without mandatory military service" within it. We don't need two lists coverint the same topic. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military Service. The information is contained there, and someone may look up the subject. And while we're at it, Conscription and Military Service should be sorted out better. --Arcanios (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to military service per argument that this national policy has nothing to do with supranational organization. Article is only needed if a common EU defense ever has a common policy. Joshdboz (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the transformations in the European Union member states' policies, is an important subject for further examination. The EU is not "just another supranational bloc" (read the relevant treaties). Many member states abolished conscription on the basis that it is not needed, since the Union promotes tighter integration between them and a more secure environment. In fact, I believe that every key sector of a "typical" national state, should be projected upon the relevant transformations of the EU. I would also like to add that eurosceptic users may have their own personal political views about what "makes sense" and what not, but this is Wikipedia and many people find these information useful if they are listed as separate and not bloated articles, with long lists and/or tables. -- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.208.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Redundant, the text provides too little of information for the purpose suggested by 85.75.208.75 above. Individual articles on military service per country would be useful, though. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a list of wikilinks, no text. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:31, 22 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 per WP:SNOW as a Hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hecknicity

Speediest delete possible. Not only is it a definition, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it's nonexistent according to Google. Also, the sources given are only sources for roots, not for the actual word. A non-author user Hwthwr (likely a sock-puppet) opined that "Although it is obsolete, this page will come in handy for someone who stumbles across this word and can not find a definiton. It is not a protologism, it has been seen before." If Google results are any indication, no one will need worry about stumbling across this word, and it HASN'T been seen before. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evan makes a valid point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwthwr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, totally devoid of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - if the word is "not present anywhere on the internet, nor is it heard commonly in any English-speaking areas throughout the globe", then WP isn't the place to start your little meme. Dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Clear case of WP:DICT, no WP:RS. Just because you can build a word with greek/latin roots doesn't make it a word. Even if you can, it doesn't make it worthy of an article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax if ever I saw one. single purpose account (s). the creator, in fact all major contributors are probably the same person. Keeper | 76 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yup this is a hoax too, I wonder how many of these are on Wikipedia right now Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It has been here too long already. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this were a real word which could be verified and sourced, the article would still just be a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 19 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX

A violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. Biruitorul (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article highlights the closest familial relationship between six of the seven monarchs of Europe today, a link that can hardly be called tenuous. As for the common ancestors, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were known as the grandmother of Europe and father-in-law of Europe respectively. This article demonstrates the reasoning behind these nicknames. The close familial ties between the courts of Europe during the First World War are often referenced, but never usually fully examined, and this article provides a thorough analysis. The family trees help to highlight the familial relationships discussed in other articles such as Royal Intermarriage, Victoria of the United Kingdom and Christian IX of Denmark. This article could perhaps use some more details about the royals included emphasizing the importance of their relationship between each other but completely deleting it seems a bit extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. What the article needs is proof, in the form of cited sources, that this idea isn't a novel theory that you have invented yourself. Thus far, it has none at all. Theories are not acceptable here without such proof. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f52/september-2007-newsletter-queen-victoria-king-christian-s-descendants-13484.html a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a self-published source. Biruitorul (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then for the same reason should the following articles also be deleted:

Descent of Elizabeth II from William I
Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic
Genealogy of the British Royal Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do see WP:WAX, and focus on the current article. Forums are not reliable sources. Moreover, those articles focus on one individual each; there's no evidence these two should be linked together. Biruitorul (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Divide Descendants of each of them is a suitable separate topic, and not OR. The sources given in the article are reliable enough for that. DGG (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of these quotations from Wikipedia help bring the two individuals together?

The great dynastical success of the six children, was to a great extent not the accomplishment of Christian IX himself, but due to Louise's dynastic ambitions. Some have compared her dynastic capabilities with the ones of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
- Louise of Hesse-Kassel and Christian IX of Denmark

In early twentieth century Europe, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were prevalent throughout most of Europe's royal courts
- Royal intermarriage

Keep - the endogamy of European royalty is well-known. Whatever the objections to the citation of a newsletter, there are four books cited, which is quite good enough. I would oppose split, as I suspect this would merely produce repetition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete This article is entirely in-world and lacks real-world documentation to establish notability and meet the verifiability guidelines. The only proper reference is the game guide and this is insufficiently independent to meet these needs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.R.S. (Resident Evil)

Unsourced article consisting of nothing but plot elements from the Resident Evil games. Ridernyc (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In good faith, I believe that this article could be sourced so as to meet WP:FICT. The article does need cleanup, but it appears to do a good job of compiling information that is strewn throughout this extensive game series. -Verdatum (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless you can assure us that you know of notable resources that can be added, or you can go ahead and add them, this should be deleted because of its lack of proof of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Given that this topic spans multiple works, (seven or more video games, reference in the movie adaptation, and a novelization series), and given that the popularity has spawned the production of a Tokyo Marui replica of their sidearm, I believe this is a sufficiently notable fictional entity, deserving of it's own article. I believe any remaining issues constitute a surmountable problem. This article has only been tagged for two months, and there are no specific complaints made in the article's talk page (other than cleanup issues I've just raised as a result of this afd). -Verdatum (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will believe you if you can produce some references, otherwise its just your opinion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since most of this can be attributed to primary sources (in fact, the number of footnote citations in the article is somewhat misleading because many of the sentences have citations built in; for example, "According to the instruction manual for the Nintendo GameCube and Nintendo DS versions of the game (as well as [...]), the Raccoon Police Department's S.T.A.R.S. unit was founded in 1996 [...]"). The only remaining question is therefore its notability, which I believe is not a problem because of the importance of the series (spanning multiple media) and the importance of the organization within the series. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources are a problem, so is real world context. This article needs real world context backed up by reliable secondary sources per WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks independent reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 21:04, 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. The very first edits in Special:Contributions/Conspiracy Smasher were to nominate Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States (AfD discussion) for deletion, and subsequent edits have revealed that this person is here merely to disrupt and to provoke on a contentious issue. I am closing this and the other AFD discussion, and have revoked the account's editing privileges indefinitely. We can do without this. Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (radio)

Subject has lodged a major personal attack on one of our editors[^{[deprecated source?]} Delete per WP:BADSITES Conspiracy Smasher (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced and well-referenced article about a notable radio host; the attack page there is six months old, and the BADSITES thing has been rejected by the community, as noted on the page. Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep not sure why this is nominated. The policy linked to is a rejected policy. Not sure why attack on editor would affect the inclusion of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as of Tony Fox. User Doe_☻T^☼C 04:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Since when is it Wikipedia policy to delete articles on Wikipedia's critics? --RucasHost (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article you link to alleges that certain Wikipedia editors delete notable conspiracy theory articles due to their own POV. Isn't it rather ironic that you would propose this article for deletion considering their allegations? --RucasHost (talk) 05:18, 18 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 Page speedy deleted Billscottbob (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally challenged racehorse

Poorly named, written like a story, fails WP:V and possibly WP:N. Billscottbob (talk) 04:39, 18 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 01:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firetext

Delete Non-notable and reads like an advertisement. A quick googling reveals less than 7000 results, many of which seemed to be talking about a fire effect on text. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:spam/advertising. The company logo [5] was uploaded by the creator of the article, Johnhenry12, who describes himself there as its copyright holder. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam with no reliable sources. All I could find were press releases -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 20 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳)

Notability. The original article was prodded once (the template was removed by author of article with no discussion), has no secondary sources, and reads very much like an advertisement (which I have toned down somewhat}. I have heard of the instructors involved, but as a specialist in the field myself that is no guarantee of notability that will satisfy Wikipedia. Also, I suspect a WP:COI from the original author. I give this to the community to decide. Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on whether the article should be kept overall, but the current title will have to be changed if the article is kept. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Chinese characters should not appear in the article title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the author of 5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳):
- With each prompting for a change to the article I have responded.
- I was unaware that the template should not be removed once revisions had been made. It remains unclear to me who should be notified.
- At this juncture it still remains unclear who to notify. I will email to Bradeos Graphon directly to ask for advise.
- The content is legitimate as the style of taijiquan involved is a legitimate variation with a real history and is practised by enthusiasts in many countries. This article should be included.
- As to the charge that the article reads like an advertisement, this has also been changed. If, in someone's judgement, the problem remains, I would appreciate the opportunity to rectify it rather than have the article deleted. If Bradeos Graphon would be kind enough as to assist me with this I'd appreciate it.
- Regarding WP:COI (conflict of interest), the article, like many is intended to be a starting point for others interested in this topic to enlarge and expand upon.
- Regarding Chinese (五段太極拳) in the title: I was unaware that this was not allowed and would like rename the article as simply ' 5 Section Taijiquan ' (which was in fact its original title).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowlySurely (talk • contribs) 2007-12-18 08:19:41
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:N. Newly created style. JJL (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —JJL (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The founder is probably notable, but as always, notability is not transferable. Otherwise, there are no assertions of of notable practitioners (other than the founder), competitive successes, or any influence on anyone or anything else of any kind). Though the article states that "5 Section Taijiquan" is taught in a variety of countries, the websites of the schools linked to support this are anything but definitive about their relationship with Sam Masich's teaching. Combined with its recent creation, my vote is delete for non-notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, Minimal English sourcing (& no footnotes) article started life as an advert rm till sourcing can be found.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)de[reply]

Keep and Review The article is young and the author is constructively responsive to criticism. Heavily mark the article with its deficiencies and review it in 6 months. don't bite! jmcw (talk) 08:38, 19 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, CSD G4. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note Rules

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This fictional game is also not notable on its own (outside the Death Note anime). ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:G4 as recreation of deleted material Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of the Death Note. I strongly suggest protected redirects for both the deleted article and this article to Death_Note#Written_rules. to the nom, this is a ficitional method of murdering soemeone not a fictional game--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:36, 18 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; recreated as redirect to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Sandstein (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island of Time

This article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the Prince of Persia games and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with transwiki option, per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#GUIDE. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within#Plot summary already summarizes the significance of this island, so no major need to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. In-universe concept already present at Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 22 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 Userfy as obvious autobiography, per Geogre's Law. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric robertson

Non-notable autobiography with promotional intent; per WP:AUTO. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I guess he's a very fresh hire, googling "Eric Robertson" site:mcg.edu generates one hit, a school newsletter welcoming him to the institution. The claim to notability seems to rest on impact as a blogger. I don't know if either blog passes WP:WEB, but even if they do, I don't see any evidence of widespread coverage of "Eric Robertson" as a subject in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Suspect this user doesn't know the rules. Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 18 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 withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heat-Ray

This article is just a compilation of the uses of the Heat-Ray in the War of the Worlds stories and adaptations, with no notability or referencing outside of that context. It's just in-universe plot repetition from the plot section of the War of the Worlds articles and is duplicative of that information with original research thrown in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 minute with Google Books turns up page 99 of ISBN 0742540359 which discusses how reader perceptions of the Heat-Ray changed between 1898 and 1950. And that was merely the second search result that I read. Many books, including ISBN 0306415461, discuss the Heat-Ray and its relationship both to modern weapons and modern warfare tactics. And then there's ISBN 0786400935, which discusses how sound effects technicians created the sound effect for the Heat-Ray in films. Please put in the effort of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, as both our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination tell you to do. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Uncle G has demonstrated the existence of sources that make it pass WP:FICT; the rest is cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Heat-Ray has its infamy in and outside of The War of the Worlds. Deleting it won't solve the problem. Reginmund (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, who beat me to the punch on the cursory Google search that should be done by all nominators before AfD'ing an article as having no sources. The same goes for external notability. It takes 2 minutes. All attempts to improve an article should be made before bringing it to AfD. If you're not willing to do it yourself, tag it with improvement tags, link the Google search on the talk page, and move along. It takes the same amount of time as AfD'ing something and it's much more constructive. AFD is backed up enough as it is. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, clearly passes WP:FICT with several sources available to show its out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hugely influential concept which has shaped any number of later stories and sci fi ideas and even real life military projects. I'd agree with the others that nominators who say an article has no sources or references should spend a few minutes actually looking for them (and adding them if they feel that strongly about it) before wasting everyone else's time at AfD. Nick mallory (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Martian (War of the Worlds) (which is fairly short) until the time comes that someone actually wants to establish (not just assert) individual notability as needed per WP:FICT. It has been 1.5 years without any sources added, so there's nothing to suggest that it is going to happen tomorrow either. The article sounds very much like personal essaylike observation, and I as an outside to H. G. Wells's world just see WP:FANCRUFT (sorry). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - True, I did not search Google Books on this one, and you have found so many great references! I will do so in future Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 18 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 --JForget 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest modern wedding ring

Article is just some explanation of some family's wedding ring. Captain panda 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense, & I strongly suspect a hoax. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Johnbod. Can't be verified, and whatever content we can find sources for should go into Wedding ring. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conveniently, the article itself, in practically every other sentence, tells us outright that nothing is known about this subject. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article borders on nonsense although it might not actually cross the line. Notice that the article doesn't say when the "oldest modern wedding ring" was made, which would seem to be essential when discussing the "oldest" of an object. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy Delete" really no substance at all here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a dumb story. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like nonsense. Something like this definitely needs a source to prove otherwise. And there doesn't seem to be any useful information in the whole article. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borders on patent nonsense. Even though the Afd came out a short 3 minutes after the article's creation, I can't argue with it. I see no potential for this topic. -Verdatum (talk 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure the article's entirely about the ring, but trying to figure out exactly what it's on about is a painful experience. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete god damnit another hoax, probably the third I've spotted today Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BigHaz you're right. --Lockley (talk) 07:46, 19 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~~ --JForget 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've redirected it to Narnia (world)--JForget 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans in Narnia

This article has no assertion of notability, and is just plot repetition of plot points from the various Chronicles of Narnia articles, and as the story is already covered there, this is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourceless essay. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Arcanios (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 6 edits (counting cleanup) in over one year doesn't hint at the in-universe significance of the given information for a separate article; no established notability per WP:FICT, essay-like. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sgeureka. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nothing here. Any novel ideas can be easily incorporated in the main article. Keeper | 76 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This one was my fault. At the time I wrote it, there were a number of articles on characters from Narnia, whose infobox read human, linking to the main article on humanity. This seemed silly to me - in the context of an article about Narnia, it is more relevant to describe how humanity is represented in the books than going straight for the myriad complexities of wikipedia's biggest subject, humanity at large. So I threw this together, and left a mention on the Narnia project page so that editors could link to it or not as they saw fit.

I'm not a very prolific wikipedia editor. I was aiming to add useful contextual information to the subject, without adding any speculation or original research. That is, to answer a question ('how are people represented in the Narnia books') in a simple way that would otherwise require reading all seven novels. If you've got any tips on how this kind of thing can be done better, I'd appreciate them.

I'm not sure how this deleting/merging business works, but having looked around it looks like this would go better in the article Narnia (world) than Chronicles of Narnia itself.

Chris Thornett (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, many of us when we first started at wikipedia didn't understand encyclopedic coverage of fictional topics....by the way, if you know of any references for it it doesn't have to be deleted, but otherwise we should probably redirect to Narnia world. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:12, 19 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 --JForget 01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TI-BASIC Tutorial

Contested prod, so here we are. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Carados (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOT KurtRaschke (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook in the wrong project. Wikibooks has no fewer than 4 textbooks on this subject, all linked-to from TI-BASIC, and all in need of work. I encourage Llamanator (talk · contribs) to help to improve to the existing textbooks in the project whose remit encompasses such things. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Wikipedia is not a guide. Mattie ^TK 10:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE -FrankTobia (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks or Delete if such material is considered redundant. Powers ^T 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if possible. If not, go with LtPowers and Delete. As has been stated several times, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as a self-identifying how-to guide. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:02, 18 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendor Hyaline

This article is a very brief, in universe repetition of plot points and also actual plot text repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia, and has no notability or referencing of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into Chronicles of Narnia, then redirect. Keeper | 76 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a bit hasty, I agree there isn't much to merge there. Perhaps something could be salvaged for Narnia (world), with a redirect there instead of to the Main article? Whatever happens, I support deletion over keeping. Keeper | 76 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing particularly notable to add to the series article. A non-notable plot element. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 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, Hut 8.5 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plot, nothing worth merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 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 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi Youth City Assembly

non-notable local group. no sources listed. possible WP:SPAM via creator User:Gegelia which indicates COI issues. Google shows no real hits of notability. [6] . Mbisanz (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- no press, most web hits seem to be by Gegelia as well. --- tqbf 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon,

First of all let me ask you whether you are familiar with the work of Tbilisi Youth City Assembly at all or not? If you are not then saying it is no notable local group is incorrect. It is quit notable in Georgian political circles and is authorised by the Parliament of Georgia, Tbilisi City Hall and Tbilisi City Assembly (Sakrebulo).

There are no links for that organisation on the internet becase TYCA does not yet have a website.

Moreover, there are no articles about TYCA, except this one, that were created by me so please do not blame me for writing numerous articles about this organisation. There is indeed nothing to advertise and I do not think it sounds like an advertisment at all. However, I still do think it needs further improvements which I can do by adding more information about particular projects the Assembly implements.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Gegelia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegelia (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gegelia, if what you'd like to do is end this AfD discussion with a "keep" result, what you should do is find two reliable sources that discuss the TYCA in detail. Those could be newspaper articles or print publications, given the low profile your subject has on the web.

However, I respectfully suggest that you don't want to do that; what you instead want to do is let this article be deleted, and then recreate it when it has attained a stature that would make a deletion vote untenable. When that happens, you'll find you don't have to bear the burden of defending the article alone; other editors will step in and do that for you. --- tqbf 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are found. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as "unsourced" - the concept of a youth assembly is an interesting one. This looks like a youth counterpart of a city council. If it were a youth club, it would certainly be NN, but it is not. Since this is not from an English-speaking country, the citation of non-English language sources ought to be acceptable, as should the citation of the Assembly's own website. I hope Gegelia or his friends can address these issues before the AFD ends. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 23 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. James Birchler may possibly be notable; the laboratory almost certainly isn't. BLACKKITE 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birchler Lab

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of hosting a website like this. No sources appear on the page suggesting that the lab is famous. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- listed alongside the major colleges at Mizzou, yet nowhere to be found in these lists at missouri.edu; no press for the lab or the PIs. --- tqbf 03:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Seemes to be fluff, probably composed by a student of the lab.Grey Wanderer | Talk 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we need to be in the business of hosting the kind information that should go in a lab's own website. However, I think the principal investigator is notable enough per WP:PROF to have an article about him. --Itub (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 25 papers on pubmed in the last two years. Seems pretty notable for a smallish lab. Mykej (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an argument for articles for the authors of those papers? Where is the "Birchler Lab" itself referenced? --- tqbf 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add external sources - many - and you've got something here. Otherwise, I go with the delete arguments above. Ψν^Psi_nu 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and I'll try to write an article on James A. Birchler, the professor in charge of it, if his notability can be shown. . That's the way we usually organize these topics. There are a very few cases where a faculty laboratory group as a whole has separate notability--I should check if they are in WP--I know of two in biology--Watson's at Harvard before he left for Cold Spring Harbor, and Morgan's at Columbia. (and of course the major multi-principle investigator laboratories.) There are also some in chemistry. But they would be highly unusual and extraordinary exceptions. DGG (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep & cleanup/out - (with 'not inherited' in mind) The papers published would not have been published without the Lab's facillities. The number of papers makes the Lab notable. But what is in the Article has to have all the science mumbo-jumbo & peacock trimmed. That stuff comes in the Articles on the [[author that wrote X paper]] (or somesuch). If PubMed is the "Cited Source" then link the papers there, but (as above) external sources are also required. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the facilities provided to the principal investigator. He's the one responsible. They weren't awarded to the postdocs and grad students, or the group as a collective. DGG (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every research professor has a lab. Look at any university website, you'll see dozens of pages like this one. Wikipedia should not be hosting this content. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this "should" or "shouldn't" stuff; if things aren't notable, like this lab, they shouldn't have articles. Otherwise they should. --- tqbf 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're right. I meant to educate people who are arguing in this debate that lab pages like this are common, and that somebody at that lab created this page on Wikipedia for some reason. This sort of content is unencyclopedic, with few exceptions. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:27, 20 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 Non-admin closure. Result is KEEP, nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Abelson

Reading this article, I could find A) no particular notability beyond winning the one competition (Mid-East Regional Hammered Dulcimer Competition) and B) the sources are paper thin considering there are five of them. Look at the sources and tell me any one of them passes muster as a WP:V or WP:RS. The only other claim is who he played for and I don't think who you play for confers notability. Pigman☿ 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I formally withdraw my nomination of the article. Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. A musician who has been invited to appear for the President and Vice-President of the United States, who has produced three CDs with such notable musicians as Sam Bush and Vassar Clements, who is a teacher, performer, recording artist and producer, and an award-winner at that, is IMO notable enough to have an article.Rosencomet (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria 9 and 10 for musicians and ensembles in WP:MUSIC at the very least, possibly 5 and 6, maybe others. Appears to also meet criteria 1, possibly 4, for composers and lyricists. —Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search[7] on the competition yielded only six hits, almost all related to Mr. Abelson. Correcting the word "Mid-East" to "MidEast" (a Google suggestion) yielded zero hits. I find it difficult to call it a major award. Criteria 10 of WP:MUSIC? I'm afraid I don't see the applicability here? Pigman☿ 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 Viriditas, would you mind elaborating a bit on your other WP:MUSIC points? If you are finding info not in the article, please add it to the article and indicate it here. Nothing in the article now says he meets the other criteria you mentioned. Pigman☿ 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abelson meets and exceeds the requirements for WP:MUSIC. He won the Mid-Eastern Regional Hammered and Mountain Dulcimer Championships in 1999, a historically significant festival in Coshocton, Ohio,[8] considered the oldest dulcimer festival in Ohio and the second oldest on the planet. The dulcimer plays an important role in the 19th century culture of Appalachia, appearing in canal towns like Roscoe Village where the festival has been held for three decades; Abelson is the inheritor of a regional American folk tradition that gets little popular press. Abelson has been written about in Scene Magazine the Cleveland Free Times, the Cleveland Jewish News, Cleveland Magazine, OSU's The Lantern, and was the subject of a documentary on PBS; he's also got three CD's to his credit. The Plain Dealer, the largest circulating newspaper in the state of Ohio, includes a biographical entry on him on their Sparx in the City website, where apparently he had to go through an open audition and was selected as a participating artist,[9], meaning that the city of Cleveland recognizes Abelson as a cultural treasure. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of what you've found and presented here was to be found with good WP:V sources in the article. The award is currently sourced to what is essentially a program bio, not exactly a reliable source. I also looked for sources online before bringing this article to AfD but did not find any of those sources you are referencing. Having three CDs is not automatically a sign of notability, particularly since they appeared to be self-produced by his own production company. Since you've already found this info, would you consider adding just two good WP:RS from those you've found to the article? I'd be quite happy to withdraw this nomination if you or someone else would do so. Thanks, Pigman☿ 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a reasonable request. I'll try my best. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you very much. I hope I didn't sound snippy above. I just didn't have the info. I went to college in southern Ohio and am familiar with Appalachian music, from bluegrass to folk to the particular kind of vocal gospel from those parts. I tend to think of it as the "real" country music rather than the more commercial Nashville strain of country. I worked at a radio station that had a sizable portion of its programming devoted to this music. So I was surprised at the detail you brought forward on Mr. Abelson. But, then again, I've been out of touch with this particular strain of music for more years than I want to admit. Again, thank you for doing the research. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Er, I don't really want to seem like I'm qualifying my offer to withdraw my nomination but upon closer inspection, I still have trouble finding good sources for Mr Abelson. This link [10] is a program note, not remotely a WP:RS. And it appears wholly based on the bio he probably wrote and gives out in his "Virtual Press Kit." [11]. The "Sparx in the City" program [12] appears to be primarily a business driven program and I can't find any mention that participation means Cleveland "recognizes Abelson as a cultural treasure" or that the audition process was rigorous in any way. And while the location and age (since 1974?) of the Mid-East Regional Hammered Dulcimer Competition is certainly evocative of the roots of the American dulcimer music, I find nothing to indicate it is more prominent than scores of dulcimer contests around the US. The college paper The Lantern gave half an article to him [13] but this provided very limited information. A news search turned up only one possible news story of substance on Mr Abelson. It was in the Cleveland Jewish News, unfortunately by subscription only. Checking all the other papers you suggested returned no hits.

Viriditas, while evocative and impassioned, I can't actually verify any of the citations and claims you listed above. As I said earlier, if just two valid WP:RS and WP:V sources can be found, I will withdraw the nomination. Otherwise, I'll let it play out here. Sorry. Pigman☿ 20:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your comment and your claims about me above and in the edit summary. Your timestamp shows that you changed your offer at 20:39, 18 December 2007 -- six hours after I added three verifiable citations to the reference section at 14;29.[14]. And if you had checked the article, you would have noticed that the Cleveland Jewish News URL is linked directly to the archival article which is available in full. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abject and humble apologies comment My mistake. I left my comment for a couple of hours and obviously didn't refresh the version. I may also have missed them because I expected to find them as inline citations rather than as references at the end. Totally my fault. Stupidity rules my brain. I formally withdraw my nomination of the article. Because I'm involved, I don't think I should close it but I'll put a notice up with my nomination at the top. Again, apologies. Pigman☿ 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rosencomet and Viriditas. Maxa megalon 2000 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can this be closed as "withdrawn by nominator" yet? As a side-comment, I really wouldn't feel competent to judge what counts as notability when it comes to hammer dulcimer players or their awards (as opposed to, say, rock guitarists), and I don't think that lumping both together as "musicians" and requiring the same quantity of references would be commonsensical (the same quality of references, certainly).--Paularblaster (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: and the quality so far has me thinkig (delete, delete, delete). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The reference links do not appear to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NVP. The reference citations should be links to reputable, unbiased, third-party sources. Viriditas, do you think that Starwood is being given "undue weight" in having an advertising link (complete with prices) in the body of the article? Or is Starwood the only venue (or by far the most important venue) in which this artist has play? Mattisse 13:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go right ahead and remove any inappropriate links. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is NOT an advertising link. It is a link to a page that simply lists the speakers and entertainers who have been at different Starwood Festivals to support the statement that Matthew Abelson did, indeed, appear there. It is only a list of past events, so the fact that the prices of those events are in the list can hardly be called "advertising", unless you have a time machine to attend past events. And if I remember correctly, it was placed there to satisfy a "citation needed" tag placed either by Mattisse or one of her many sock-puppets. I just replaced it with a better one. Rosencomet (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sourcing, verifiability, and notability concerns have now been addressed. --MPerel 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Viriditas - having read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NVP, do you think http://www.flyingdulcimer.com/ meets the criteria of a reputable, unbiased, reliable third-party source? Or http://www.fssgb.org/abelson.html? (If you click on Back home at bottom, you get a 404 message. Or http://www.rosencomet.com/starwood/2002/program/a-e.html (considering that is the site of the author of the article)? Mattisse 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is NOT the site of the author of the article, as I have explained MANY times before. It is the site of an organization for which I am one of many volunteer workers. I have never inputted a single word to that site. It is the site of the organization that runs the Starwood Festival, and it contains the programs of said festival, and is being used as a citation merely to show that the subject did, indeed, appear at that event and offer a workshop. This is an entirely acceptable citation for that purpose. Here's another one, 3rd party, that at least shows him to have performed there[15].Rosencomet (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://murugabooker.com/ace.html fulfills the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NVP? Mattisse 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- Please see [16] where Rosencomet was indefinitely blocked for violating policy on 12-18-07 and [17] which outlines the COI issues he should address regarding his true identity and the adding of Starwood links to articles in which he has COI issues, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision if he wishes to be unblocked. This article, Matthew Abelson is one of the Rosencomet articles listed in this arbitration as a Starwood-related article. Mattisse 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Er, Mattisse, I don't really believe this the right forum to be adding this information. This is an AfD about the article itself and the notability of the subject. It's not a referendum on Rosencomet's actions. He wasn't blocked as a sockpuppet so this doesn't bear on his contributions to this discussion. Some of the links Rosencomet may have added to the article may violate COI and/or be inadequately reliable sources, but this doesn't address the more central issues of this AfD. That's my opinion here. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I was concerned about the WP:COI issues as this article was in the Starwood Arbitration and he still has not clarified of his user page who he is. But if that's O.K. with you, it certainly is with me. Thanks! Mattisse 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my comment. I certainly believe Rosencomet has plenty of COI issues, including with insufficiently reliable and/or spammy links/sources he put in this particular article. However, that isn't the central reason why I put it up for AfD nor a reason to delete the article. I'm currently satisfied there are some good sources to support notability and perhaps much of the information currently in the article. As to the links I believe to be inadequate, that's a content issue best left to individual editors, not an AfD. I'll probably review them in a little while and see what needs to be done. I merely wanted to suggest that your comment might not be entirely appropriate to the topic at hand. No offence intended nor am I saying you did anything wrong, just an opinion. I'm sorry if it came across as a rebuke or attack. Again, not my intent. Sincerely and best, Pigman☿ 23:51, 19 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 into Angus Young#Guitars and parts to Gibson SG as well. NN enough for its own article. 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Angus Young Signature SG

Article about a specific guitar! Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- I don't know, did you try asking... the Interwebs? Here's a start. --- tqbf 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirect Angus Young#Guitars (or redirect Gibson SG) might be the best solution. This short article does not manage to make it clear that the guitar is a commercially available product - I thought it was about one specific individual instrument. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:55, 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, TerriersFan (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Angus Young. It could also be listed as a special edition under Gibson SG, although I wonder if it's really appropriate there to list all the special editions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:20, 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. Kurykh 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShapeIdeas

Advert for a non-notable piece of software. Created by User:Shapeideas who has done no other edits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sigh, WP:VSCT. --- tqbf 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How non-notable? The page has also been edited by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapeideas (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Please read Dont' Say Non Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapeideas (talk • contribs) [reply]
There isn't one third-party reliable source in the article; that's how non-notable. --- tqbf 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamifragilisticexpialidocious, no notability asserted so it's possibly a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a speedy if it's already being contested in AfD. --- tqbf 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under AFD aren't immune to speedy. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but contested AfDs should be. --- tqbf 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD being contested only by the article's creator is no more immune to speedy than a speedily tagged article contested by the article's creator (it's not). This article happens to be immune to speedy in any event because the subject doesn't fall under A7 (effectively what TPH suggested), and hasn't been shown to fall under other criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, independent, verifiable resources magically appear. Keeper | 76 23:41, 18 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 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast or fired

Non-notable wrestling event. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable gimmick match, just a match with a particular stipulation so effectively just a minor storyline in a TV show. MLA (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a one off non-notable match. - Dumelow (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale. I went to the website and found an article called "feast or fired", and still I don't see how it is even remotely notable. Keeper | 76 23:18, 18 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in London

Wikipedia is not a directory. An enclyclopedia is not really the place for lists of non-notable bus routes. Based on what i've read of the last afd, which i was not involved in, the result seems to have been incorrectly decided not based on valid points but on numbers. Neon white (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we are going to allow an article for each separate bus route, then this article is allowed almost automatically as an index to those articles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

Several of the article are also up for deletion. Regardless, other stuff exists is not a valid defence of an article. Every article has to justify it's own notability. The question here is whether a list of bus routes is encylcopedic content or of any use. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think RHaworth's argument is a valid one and not a case of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Under that argument, the list justifies its existence on its own, as a navigational aid for other existing articles. If every article about a London bus line gets deleted, then I'd reconsider this reason. But in addition to the navigational argument, I think this is a useful list to have in an encyclopedia. "Useful" in a good way, not in the caricature of the word that is given on WP:USEFUL which uses a phonebook as an example. This information is more than a travel guide; it can be of use for students and researchers interested in urban planning and transportation, and I believe that that falls under our mission. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is effectively an appendix to the main article London buses. It seems a natural and useful adjunct to that article. I agree that individual routes will not normally merit an article but this means that the list article is a economical way of providing a token reference in a well-structured way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but also note that many London bus route numbers have been unchanged for generations; this is thus a useful list when looking up references in literature and so on. Chrislintott (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MLA (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what's encylopedic about lists of bus routes. One person wants to keep the article because "we are going to allow an article about each separate bus route", which begs the question, "Why are we going to allow an article about each separate bus route?" Someone else looks at this as a navigational aid for the bus route articles, and another sees it as an appendix to an article about the buses of London. Still, why would we have an article in an encyclopedia about ANY city's bus route? This seems to be a case of putting something on Wikipedia "just because we can". However, it's no more encyclopedic than your shopping list at the grocery store. It was a dumb idea that was accepted back in the day when Wikipedia would take anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-I just does not know that why people hate buseus so much, they are part and parcel to our lives(Do Not mentioned that several people may be using cars-they may broke down too), so why delete them, they are also quite a useful reference for many too as they prove a definite value of research. However, giving each bus a page was unnecessary but this was not applicable to this page as the list of bus routes. Lastly, i would also like to wish that this Afd would be the last petaining such a issue.--Quek157 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we don't hate buses, we just don't think that Wikipedia should be a travel-guide. I mean, it's called wikiPEDIA, not... uh... wiki...lonelyplanet. Right. Epthorn (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitravel if not there already. This is perfectly good information, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Obvious case of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some people are under the wrong impression these articles are just about contemporary information - they are not, most of the route articles contain a lot of historical information as well. If you don't think that's noteworthy you should go to a library and look up books on London Buses. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a very small number actually contain information that is historically notable, but that is a different issue, this is anout this articles notability. I cannot envisage this being useful to anyone as anything other than a travel guide. --Neon white (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I've used it previously as an index for researching said historical infromation MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC), and I live 500 miles from London MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a simple, easy to use, and logical way of linking together a large number of separate entries. Page94 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious travel guide issue. Not at all encyclopedic. Keeper | 76 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess this sort of a travel guide is notable but it seems strange we will debate this, and at the same time a list of asteroids for crying out loud Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the travel guide comparison is spurious and not very well thought out. The article might not be notable, or might even resemble 'buscruft' trivia to some people who are not interested in the information, but Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL does not mention anything about lists of bus routes, it is about not writing about every landmark, hotel and the like. No travel guide would include a list of all london bus routes in this format because it would be pretty useless, which is precisely why it doesn't even appear on the Transport for London website. Presenting it as information that would be in a travel guide is a very poor comparison, presenting it as a List of London bus routes with links to associated route and geographic articles, it serves its factual purpose. Patently nobody is going to use this list rather than Tfl for their London bus travel needs, which is something I think people in here haven't thought too much about. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still essentially a directory of bus routes and wikipedia is not a directory. It might not be in a travel guides, but it would be in a bus timetable which isn't very encyclopedic. No other city has lists such as this that i know of. I fail to see what is notable about this particular cities bus routes. Are we to allow bus/train/plane/tram route articles for every city on earth? It isn't really the purpose of wikipedia to contain such information. On reflection i think this is an indiscriminate collection of information --Neon white (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London's system is notable because it is run on a relatively stable multi-operator franchise model with enormous public funding, as opposed to elsewhere in the UK, but that's beside the point. There are certainly hundreds of articles on WP detailing transport modes down to the route level, the proposition 'are we to list all xyz for all cities?' has not prevented these articles from being created and maintained, or are we supposed to be saving server space for more Star Trek articles? This list doesn't serve any kind of useful transport information purpose, it is a numbered list of routes pure and simple, notable or not. You will not find this list in this format issued by a London transport operator or Tfl, because some of these routes are separated by a very long distance in travel terms - London is one of the biggest metropolises in the world. Another Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines concerned an article that is much more like a travel guide, and survived with the same arguments presented here. There is clearly a wider issue surrounding this type of article and WP:NOT/N/DIR etc, with the same arguments are going round and round from what I have seen, with very few succesfull deletions. Raising and debating single Afds for every list is going to be pretty pointless unless the general policy is updated. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport for London has an article, it isn't the one in question. Please stick to points about this particular article and why it is notable or otherwsie. Wikipedia has clear limits to what should be included and i think the policies about what wikipedia is not are quite clear regardless of whether the majority of commenters on afds have actually read it or understand the criteria for inclusion. The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines only survived due to some bad misunderstanding of guidelines and some incredibly spurious points, again incorrectly made about the actual transport system, which, as here, isn't the subject of the article. To justify both article you would have to claim that every single route was notable not merely the system they belong too. Is every street that is part of a road system notable? This a list to non-notable products of a company with price information. It's advertising commercial services. If a route has a notable history it's a different issue but 99% of these do not, therefore all they are are a bus timetable entries. --Neon white (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a price list or a bus timetable, it doesn't look anything like a timetable. Have you ever used a normal travel resource for London bus travel? It looks nothing like this list. I am not stating a case for it's notability, the franchise comment was merely an afterthought about the stability of the Tfl system which lends itself to a list of 'official' route numbers (not decided by companies or operators). Anyway, my comments are addressing the idea that this list is somehow a travel guide, I am saying it would be useless as such. But it has opened my eyes to the many times Afds like this have happened for lists of transport routes, and I don't think you can say that all these Afd failures are merely down to the fact only you are reading the rules right, if there is that much confusion there is clearly an issue with the policies. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles contain prices and times of services. That is a timetable. If you read the previous afd, the result is generally lack of consensus, most of the keep pointing are not correct and are contrary to policy and guidelines on notability. I think it's more an issue with people not researching policies and not really understanding the purpose of an encyclopedia, that is not a random collection of information. If people understood that deletion wouldnt be necessary. I am still not convinced that bus route's are encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, I am not commenting on whether it is notable or not, but regarding _this_ article as you insisted on previously, it is not a timetable, or a price list, or a travel guide, or a random collection of information (how can it possibly be random? It comes directly from an official structured system that exists in real life). And again, not once in WP:NOT does it mention bus routes or any other kind of route, not ever, not even in a round about way, so how can everyone but you be misunderstanding the policy? Take a look at this sometime aswell, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic, and try and clarify your objections MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly mentions that wikipedia is not a directory and this is simply a directory of bus routes in london, there is no other way to describe it, it has little to no encyclopedic value whatsoever and no context. it does say collections of information may be considered indiscriminate even if not specifically delineated. WP:NOT does not list an example of everything. Even if it exists and is verifiable it doesn't guarantee that an article is relevant for an encyclopida. What i actually said was that a number of people on the previous afd misunderstood the criteria for notablity and i still maintain that a large number of editors on wikipedia have no idea what an encyclopia is for, which can be seen plain for the amount of articles deleted. --Neon white (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your lack of interest or conception of the use of this list to anyone beyond use as a travel guide (which it is not) is colouring your interpretation of the very vague 'and anything else' approach to WP:NOT. Also, on 'wikipedia is not a directory' - the policy has the specific caveat of "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia". MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework to include history, like list of bus routes in Manhattan. If there is an official split of the bus routes by areas of London, it might make sense to split the list (in New York, the routes are prefixed; Manhattan routes begin with M for instance, including some that cross into other boroughs). Many bus routes are notable descendants of street railway lines; for others, all the important information can be placed into a list like this. --NE2 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of links to related articles is an excellent sort of navigation list. IF there are articles for the bus routes - which there are - then this navigation list should be kept. If the bus route articles are someday deleted, then this navigation list will no longer be needed and will be eliminated.-Fagles (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on WP:LIST that suggests this type of list is valid. Alot of the routes aren't notable. An article of notable/historically significant routes would be far more encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make your mind up, here you want lists of bus routes to be mentioned specifically in WP:LIST, whereas above you use the fact they are not mentioned in WP:NOT to support the same case. You can't have it both ways. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire page is almost an exact copy of the info available here [18] --Neon white (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the objection? Would you expect them to be different? And yes, as you point out, they are almost the same, as in someone has decided that intermediate points in this list would be unencyclopedic, so as to avoid collecting indiscriminate information, or making a travel guide. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Public transportation is a notable social topic; arguably growing in importance with global warming. We have articles on all major roads in England Category:Roads in England (with 389 top level articles and 6 dense subcategories) and an entire category full of lists of cars Category:Lists of automobiles. Why are bus routes less notable?--agr (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are categories not lists, they are not the same and do not follow the same rules. Arguably this should also be a category. Public transportation in london is covered in a seperate article that clearly is notable, this article, however, is not an article about public transport, it is a directory of bus routes without context. --Neon white (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comparing the article here with the categories, but with the articles in the categories, for example compare A632 road with London Buses route 632. Why is one notable and the other not? Why is List of bus routes in London less worthy than List of car companies that do not make FWD models? Both public transport and automobile transport are covered in great detail on Wikipedia with thousands of articles each. That has been accepted practice for years.--agr (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and Lists are given equal weight under WP policy and are not mutually exclusive, if you are of the opinion that a category is allowable, then a list is aswell. And this list does have context, it has a clear parent article, and the term London Bus Route is a legal definition under the Tfl legal franchising framework. Again, I think your ignorance of the subject matter is clouding your opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is a useful index for all the London bus articles. The London bus routes are all very notable. They are famous worldwide and have historic value. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somebody has obviously put alot of work into all of this and the pages it links too. Either keep it here or put it onto WikiTravel. It would be a shame to lose it all. 217.155.44.216 ([[User talk:217.155.44.21
Keep there are all sorts of things that are encyclopedic to some but not to others. Kingturtle (talk) 22:06, 22 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, not notable --Step hen 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland - Crônicas do Fim da Inocência (Fanzine)

Non-notable self-published comic/manga. No wikilinks to the article except from disambiguation page. Article seems to have been created by the publication's creator. Most of the handful of Google hits are for mirrors of this article. JasonAQuest (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images included in the article should probably be deleted as well. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we transwiki to ~~foreign~~ other language versions of Wikipedia? Hiding T 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doubtful this would qualify for an article on the Portuguese WP either. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly we need an article on Portuguese comics where a mention could be made of this, but whether it merits a whole article... Hiding T 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even mentioning it within an article would require establishing more independent notability than we can for this. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it wouldn't. An overview of fanzines and the like would allow mention of this by name sourced to primary source. Hiding T 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Only if it were a significant example or an instance that happens to illustrate the essence of a "fanzine" (and this is neither). Otherwise any number of people would remove it as a vanity link (and this article is that). Just because something exists doesn't mean it warrants mention in an encyclopedia article, which seems to be the standard you're arguing. Creating an article just to house a link to something that will almost certainly be removed from that article as a trivial example is a bad idea. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not the standard I am arguing for, so please don't imply otherwise. I believe my words speak for themselves, possibly and could aren't the definitive absolutes you appear to be portraying them as. I'd rather attempt to point possible editors to more productive areas. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for wasting it with your hypotheticals. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made a fast search, it was pretty unsuccesful in finding anything reliable.--Aldux (talk) 14:56, 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. Hut 8.5 11:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene doll

Unable to find any WP:Reliable Sources for this product. Plenty of promotional/shop sites list it and a couple of blogs say "this doll is my favorite", but nothing to establish WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the New York Times was willing to run a reasonably lengthy article about this doll (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07EFDA113FF931A15751C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all), it qualifies as notable.Wombat1138 (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these are an odd little niche, something like American Girl for adults. Sources exist (though they do not abound) in Google Books and Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article in NY times to establish notability and verifiability. Keeper | 76 22:59, 18 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 and move to Clinical vampirism. Sandstein (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renfield's syndrome

Sorry to who wrote this but I don't think it qualifies as notable, having been a name proposed by one psychologist in a book he authored on the subject. I could find anywhere where it was supported as a valid syndrome outside this author's work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you cant just read the article, you have to do some research. GNews Archive: [19] has hits for the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's 5 hits - 2 local news bites, and 2 writers and a something. The Yarbro link doesn't mention it. Nothing that thrills me as a reputable source really but I'll go on consensus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The syndrome seems to be real, but it needs more references outside the already existing one. If this is a real syndrome, there will be other reliable sources to prove it really exists. If the only suitable source is the work by one author, the article should be deleted. --clpo13_(talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a realand notable syndrome (Even featured on an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit if I recall correctly). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO or possibly merge to Vampire lifestyle, emphasizing that it is a psychiatric disorder. The medical literature does not support this name for the disorder, and classifies this behaviour as either a psychosis or a paraphilia dependent on other patient-specific factors. I could find no references for this syndrome on two subscription-only but very expansive medical databases. Risker (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See my note below about possible merge to Clinical vampirism) Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Risker, and note to Spawn Man, I tried to find evidence of an SVU episode mentioning this and couldn't. --- tqbf 04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly move to "clinical vampirism" or another name; see five books that mention it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though the most authoritative-looking book mentions it as the preferred future label of a condition rather than something alrady in existence.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to tqbf - No, it was in there, but it wasn't a main plot element. I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of and does merit inclusion. My Google searches -wikipedia turned up nearly 2000 hits, so it shows it's not completely NN. Further searching revealed that it had been on the show CSI [20], and also found this, but I'm not sure how cemented the sources are. After about an hour of searching, I also found out that the Renfield's mention was in the SVU Season 5 epidsode, "Control", although I can't find any online sources as yet (Maybe someone who knows where to look can find it quicker). Hope this helps, but yeah, I still feel it's worth keeping on the site. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2000 Ghits make it hard to argue that it's a neologism. Risker's hypothesis (unlike Renfield's syndrome) may not pass peer review :-). To use Risker's own words from another page, the allegation of neologism is based on irrelevant information with no significance from sources unknown. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. This topic isn't something made up one day. Improve the article -- don't delete it. --Ssbohio (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Read the article and you will see that the term is something someone made up one day, although at this point nobody has located a reference showing that Richard Noll did indeed use this term. His work that related to vampirism was published in the early 1990s, but still no discussion of the term in mainstream medical or psychology sources; in fact the majority of those 2000 Ghits are from the "vampires are cool" crowd and may well be the repetition of an urban legend. And Ssbohio, if you have a problem with me, then it is between the two of us. Please have more respect for the rest of the editors who are focusing on the purpose of this AfD rather than carrying a grudge. Risker (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even urban legends can be notable, and my good-faith belief is that this article needs improvement rather than deletion. My only problem is with your apparent preference to destroy what could be improved instead, not with you personally. I felt that using your own words in my Keep !vote was an eloquent commentary on your approach. I'm glad to discuss any interpersonal issues in the appropriate forum. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:When you do the google seach with quotes, to get only Renfield's syndrome, I get only 766 hits. However, when I do the same search in pubmed, the free online database managed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which keeps track of all medical research, I get no hits at all. That is, there is absolutely zero peer-reviewed, scientific research that uses this term. There may be books by someone trying to introduce this term, and subsequent interviews, but this is not a scientific concept. By comparison, Capgras syndrome, which is an accepted medical diagnosis, although a rare condition, gets 441 hits on PubMed. Ssbohio, not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems that Renfield's syndrome has not passed peer review. This is not a term that people working in the field are using, and therefore does qualify as a neologism, and certainly does not qualify as notable. Edhubbard (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did the same test but with "Renfields syndrome" (Note the absense of the ') and got 2000 on google; there could just be a mispelling. JSYK (If you'd managed to click the link I provided above!) :). Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you spell it, there are no hits in PubMed. That is, no peer review, no reliable sources. Whether it's 766 or 2000 Ghits, it's still zero peer-reviwed, independent, reliable sources. Edhubbard (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who cares if it is a recognized medical condition or just a term used in fiction, and in newspapers and books? Wikipedia isn't a medical encyclopedia. Your search isn't relevant. So long as it is defined in books and newspapers thats all that matters. And certainly Crime Library is a reliable source. Your argument is the same as saying since we can't prove God exists, we shouldn't have articles on God. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note your recent additional reference sources. We are still at the point where Richard Noll is the only medical expert to be reported using this term anywhere, and the reference sources themselves talk about the syndrome as clinical vampirism. With that in mind, I would support merging this article with Clinical vampirism with Renfield's syndrome redirecting there. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Clinical vampirism is an empty redirect to this, what article are you talking about? Again, why would any reader care if a medical expert uses, or doesn't use the term? Its irrelevant. We don't need NASA's blessing to write about UFO's. The Greek Gods don't have to really exist to have articles on them. Your confusing truth with reliability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Clinical vampirism is the more accepted term and appears in more quality references. The article should be rewritten to reflect this, with a note that Noll has given it the name Renfield's syndrome. Risker (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would fail Wikipedia's notability and undue weight rule. If you treat this as a work of fiction, it cannot satisfy that requirement since it is not notable enough to stand on its own. If you are not trying to write this from the perspective of fiction, it would fail WP:INUNIVERSE. This article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not following your logic. What Universe would this be exactly? Undue weight to what POV? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That sources mention but do not describe this term, fails WP:NEO. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - You must be reading a different article than I am. Even the CSI link has a definition for it, the crime library article titled Renfields, runs for a full page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's become pretty clear that you're determined to shrug off this encyclopedia's most basic protocols to advance your own agenda so I won't respond (and I would advise others not to as well) to your baseless arguments. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What protocol? Please be specific. Your using vague generalities, not citing specific rules and regulations. I am using all secondary and tertiary sources, so I am not sure how Universe applies. I also don't know what "undue weight" is in the article, again you are just using generalities, and not pointing to text in the article or a violation of a specific rule in the "undue weight" rules. You need to be specific and quote the article, and then quote the rules so it is apparent to me, and others reading your comments. What point of view am I pushing with undue weight, I just don't follow your logic. If you still can't see the definitions, here are the main references used in the article with the definitions in bold for ease of location. I can't cut an paste the CSI one its a flash window, and cant be cut and pasted, you will have to click on it yourself. Cheers. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] BTW, I don't have an agenda. I just came here from the deletion notice and added some references. I do find it ironic that your expending more keystrokes here arguing for deletion, than keystrokes to improve the article.

Keep I think although the research is preliminary, the syndrome can be recognized in some cases (even if they are sometimes diagnosed as schizophrenia or other mental disorders, see Neville Heath). The syndrome is mentioned in some notable works of fiction and medicine (whether Richard Noll is taken seriously or not, he is a psychiatrist) and that provides notability. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly where does anything on Neville Heath indicate that he was suffering from Renfield's syndrome? Risker (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leery when I first saw the article, but as I reviewed the article, it was clear that there are red-blooded reliable sources to support the term and its usage, thus satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article supplies enough sources to support notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, possibly rename as noted above. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY too... but it should be renamed to "Clinical Vampirism" because that phrase shows up in book searches but the current article title gets no traction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:42, 20 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.

References

^ "Clinical vampirism. A presentation of 3 cases and a re-evaluation of Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer'". S Afr Med J. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Clinical vampirism is named after the mythical vampire, and is a recognizable, although rare, clinical entity characterized by periodic compulsive blood-drinking, affinity with the dead and uncertain identity. It is hypothetically the expression of an inherited archaic myth, the act of taking blood being a ritual that gives temporary relief. From ancient times vampirists have given substance to belief in the existence of supernatural vampires. Four vampirists, including Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer', are described.
^ "Will those elusive vampires show up at a symposium dedicated to them?". Macleans. Retrieved 2007-12-18. In fact, there is a psychiatric condition called Renfield's Syndrome, named for the mentally deranged character in Bram Stoker's Dracula who craves spiders and bugs, believing them to be a life force. Those suffering from the syndrome have an erotic attraction to ingesting blood, which they see as a means of gaining immortality and other powers.
^ "CSI:Committed". CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Kenny Valdez is in the Seclusion Room, strapped to a bed in a five-point restraint system, claiming he can "smell it!" Kenny suffers from Renfield's syndrome, a self-mutilator. The CSIs notice that even though Kenny has blood on his clothes, there is no spatter pattern. Click on the link and then click on the definition of RENFIELDS in the article
^ Ramsland, Katherine. "Renfield's Syndrome". Crime Library. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Psychiatrists are aware that there exists a behavior known as "clinical vampirism," which is a syndrome involving the delusion of actually being a vampire and feeling the need for blood. This arises not from fiction and film but from the erotic attraction to blood and the idea that it conveys certain powers, although the actual manifestation of the fantasy may be influenced by fiction. It develops through fantasies involving sexual excitement.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cohen

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Philadelphia politician, elected to office served until 90 years old, also served under FDR during WWII. Passes wp:bio. Article needs work, not a reason to delete. Pharmboy (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tiny bit of useful and notable info in each article. Merge and Redirect Mark B. Cohen, Florence Cohen, and David Cohen into Cohen Family (Philidelphia). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cohen has a long history in Philly and just a quick search found some references [21] and [22]. I think his notability stands on its own and warrants its own article. If this article was trimmed to remove extraneous nonsense, I think Florence and Denis could have SOME information merged into the page. Montco (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Cohen was one of the tenacious and famous political figures in Philadelphia history, who played a significant role in many public issues over many decades. User: Zulitz —Preceding comment was added at 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did most of the editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with article Florence Cohen could be significantly strengthened.--RedShiftPA (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, and the article is very good and informative as well. --Arcanios (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as neither unverifiable nor unnotable; but somebody with a real (unconflicted) interest ought to add inline citations, edit out the verbiage, transwiki the quotations, and do all sorts of other stuff to clean it up. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough to have a wiki vendetta started against him. Mykej (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite the whole article fails in the verifiability department but otherwise this is an obviously notable person Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:12, 19 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/keep. Cool Hand Luke 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Cohen

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed fails wp:bio Pharmboy (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change delete to neutral More content and cites were added, still is borderline but likely ok under 'Wikipedia is not a paper enclopedia' catchall. Pharmboy (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because he inspired a notable cartoonist does not mean he himself is notable. Danae could tell you that. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tiny bit of useful and notable info in each article. Merge and Redirect ~~Mark J. Cohen,~~ Mark B. Cohen, Florence Cohen, and David Cohen into Cohen Family (Philidelphia). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no indication that Mark J. Cohen is related to the other two Cohens currently being discussed at AfD. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and no sourcing for that matter. Montco (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to have been notable enough. Comics Buyers Guide, Penstuff and Cartoon World seem to have had five different articles focusing on him between 1996 and 2000, as this link shows (page 115). I added some information to the article that I could glean from the Web. If he was just a collector, I don't think that would be notable enough, but he also was in business representing the artists and apparently wrote about comics (Whiting calls him a "respected historian" of comics, although I haven't found anything written by Cohen.) It's not the strongest case, or the strongest article, but on balance, seems worth keeping. Noroton (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by Noroton above. Further, he seems to be apolitical and is no relation to Philadelphia Cohens, who seem to be the primary source of RedShiftPA's grievance against the prominent Philadelphia Democratic family. User: Zulitz 11:07, 18 Dec 2007
- Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did much of the significant editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which is irrelevant in terms of discounting Zulitz' opinion, although it's nice to know the creator of the article knows about the deletion discussion. Noroton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet standards of WP:BIO. Just because this article is apolitical doesn't make it notable.--RedShiftPA (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin should note that RedshiftPA is the nominator. Nominators generally don't also vote in a separate spot on the off chance that their votes are counted twice. Still assuming good faith. Just saying ... :) Noroton (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for reasons given above and in dubio... --Arcanios (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for proper citation to be added (Noroton has shown it's out there); pace Noroton's "just a collector", major collectors who provide desirable pieces for public exhibitions tend to be considered a notable part of the art world. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything at all about comics or cartoons, and not enough about art. I defer to Paularblaster about how notable collectors are considered. Cohen's collections, for what it's worth, have had years-long tours of various museums.Noroton (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons above. Mykej (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the collections having been toured and per our policies given the fact that sources exist. Hiding T 16:40, 23 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. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step It Up and Dance

Article has no references establishing notability and violates WP:CBALL. Simple Paradox 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the page is worthwhile as the programme has an entry on IMDb and various different articles exist online discussing it. I have added two external links, one to a Variety article about the show and the other to a Hollywood Reporter article discussing it, as well as a link to its IMDb profile.

I plan to add information to the page as it becomes available and obviously when the programme starts it will contain more information.

I trust this is sufficient.Le David (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: David Rush's stated reasoning seems sufficient. After his explanation, and the inclusion of the Variety and Hollywood Reporter article I would be happy to withdraw my nomination, although I am not sure that is an option at this point. --Simple Paradox 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Seems to be notable, satisfying the general notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't think WP:CBALL applies, because it doesn't appear to be speculative. I say keep, though I can't stand the idea of another insufferable reality show, marking the effect of the writer's strike. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... the IMDB link is NOT reliable for establishing anything of fact, as it is user-content generated I believe. That said, the other two sources establish the existence of the show... national syndication would make me think it's going to be notable enough to support an article. Unless canceled I think this should be a keep.Epthorn (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - those two articles below the IMDB link suffice for evidence of its existence. Scarian ^Talk 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will I remove the "Articles for deletion" tag or do I need to wait till a certain number of 'Keeps' accumulate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One must wait until there is a clear consensus for Keep/Delete/Merge/Whatever before this AfD can be closed. But, no, don't remove the AfD tag. Scarian ^Talk 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: David just wait for an administrator to come by and close the AfD, which should happen fairly soon. Meanwhile, you can continue to edit the article. Cheers. --Simple Paradox 22:23, 18 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 David Cohen. Absence of sourcing leaves little alternative for now. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Cohen

non notable biography RedShiftPA (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs citations, but claims to be union leader (female) in the Rural Electrification Administration from 1936 to 1943, which makes her notable. She may be more known for her husband, but her own contributions make her notable on her own as well. Pharmboy (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tiny bit of useful and notable info in each article. Merge and Redirect Mark B. Cohen, Florence Cohen, and David Cohen into Cohen Family (Philidelphia). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and Merge limited FACTS into the David Cohen page. The potential exists that she could be notable, but being a union administrator and the wife of a notable person doesn't quite do it. Montco (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHow many public sector union leaders from the 1930's are still around today? How many 90 year olds still hold leadership positions of any kind today? There cannot be very many in any category, and an encyclopedia with over 2 million entries (likely over 3 million entries in the not too distant future) certainly has room for her. User:Zulitz, 11:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a public sector union leader doesn't necessarily make one notable, nor does living a long time.Montco (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did much of the editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article about husband David Cohen. Info about being president of retirement home is not noteworthy . This article isn't clear that David is husband. --RedShiftPA (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. I just don't see any claim to notability in this article. Being the secretary of a union local isn't the kind of union leadership that gets a person an entry in an encyclopedia. Also, the article has zero sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political activists don't necessarily tick the boxes for exalted positions that would confer a prima facie presumption of notability, but she's plainly a notable one: don't say "the article has no sources": if it bothers you, find some sources and put them in. There's press coverage (e.g. here) and her papers as an activist for integrated schools and neighbourhoods (1959-1980) are catalogued in a university collection - surely a sign of historical notability. It is delightful to read suggestions that "an early member of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Organization of Women and the Philadelphia Chapter of the Women's Political Caucus" should become a footnote in the article on her husband (and also that RedShiftPA should be proposing merging her article to his, at the same time as putting his up for deletion). --Paularblaster (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to make it a point to read up on her, provided the airbrushing of history doesn't beat me to it. Mykej (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice; fails WP:BLP due to lack of reliable third party sources. If this matter can be resolved then I agree the subject itself warrants an eventual article. (jarbarf) (talk) 06:05, 23 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 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kord (band)

The article covers a band, but makes little assertion of notability and has no sources. It makes a brief mention of "a charted hit on a national music chart", but this is not backed up by references of any sort. I do not believe this article satisfies the notability guideline for bands.

Also nominating:

Stefan Corbu, as an article on a member of the band created by the same editor.

Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before purpose an article for deletion, i think it should be fair to search about article and about the contained of the subject. Your reasons about deletion Kord (band) are not notable. And about sources, i think i already specified the source of the image which is very legal and the info about Kord (band) it's more then notable. Try to search on google about Kord and check other websites (like www.myspace.com, www.kord.ro) for satisfied your curiosity. It's pity that there are persons which are trying to flout others work and make some contributions look like unreliable articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drokstef (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 December 2007
- Comment: A MySpace page or their own website is not enough to be considered notable under Wikipedia's notability standards for bands. What you'd need to find is a reliable, independent source discussing the band, and/or a citation showing the notability of the band in some other way as outlined by the notability guidelines. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many backed up references about Kord in a national music chart, but it's very important to know how to search on google and very-very important to read!!! Take some reliable links about that: RT100 and search Issue no.49/2005 and you'll find Kord in a national music chart; another link with many notable and important details about Kord RadioLynx . So, it's not my bussines look for you something that you should know; and if you still want to look up for take this: KissFM-Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drokstef (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I ask you to place these souces in the article, not here. -Carados (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you are the creator and primary contributor of the article in question it is your business and no-one else's to source the article properly and establish it's notabilty. --Neon white (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not true. Wikipedia is a product of collaborative editing, per our Wikipedia:Editing policy, and articles do not have owners, per our Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy. You can look for sources, too, and should do, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, before considering deletion as an option. Improving articles at Wikipedia is everyone's business. Wikipedia does not need editors who think that the actual writing of the encyclopedia is Somebody Else's Problem. Wikipedia needs editors who will collaboratively help to find sources and to write and improve articles. I encourage you to be the sort of editor that Wikipedia needs. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-Carados (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of third-party sources establishing notability. Biruitorul (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked this site per Drokstef's suggestion, and found that Kord did indeed chart in Romania. However, I'm having no luck finding any other sources, and the RT100 page won't let you link directly to an individual chart week. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the link provided, Kord hit #96 in issue #49 in 2005 for song Langa mine. In issue #48 (immediately prior to listing at #96), Kord was not on the list. In issue #50, Kord was #79. That is the last issue for 2005. In Issue #1 for 2006, Kord was not on the list. That seems to be it. Reached #96 and then #79 in weekly top 100 for Romanian chart. Then gone. One hit wonder. Not notable. Delete Stefan Corbu as well. Keeper | 76 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - if they get at least one more notable song (as if), consider bringing them back. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong aplication!

Remove articles like Kord (band) it's unfair because someone it's too lazy to verify and search for reliable sources... anyway read this and hope you'll reconsider your WRONG suggestions!!

<You're trying to delete some articles which are very notable (without searching for reliable sources) and this articles are containing some important criteria for musicians like: they had a charted hit on a national music chart (RT100) and if you search about RT100, you'll see that it's a reliable source; and then, this band (Kord) contains at least one member who was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable (Nicoleta Alexandru); and then, they had been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (SRR - Radio România Actualităţi); and then, they had been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, like : RadioTotal which had them in their top too, and few weeks ago they were invited on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) in a tv-show named Teoviziunea (which i saw with my own eyes), where they launch the new video of a single named Viseaza. You don't think that this are reliable source and notable? I know more examples like those, but i won't write every tv-show or national radio that had them invited, and i'm sure that i don't know all the important shows where they were invited. So, please contact all those named sources and find that i'm NOT a crazy editor which is writing some aberrations. Everything that i write you it's TRUE and because of that i think that both article are notable! Thanks for reading this and hope you'll not suggest again both articles for "Article for deletion".> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.80.198 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not remove the article "Kord band"

i've just checked about Kord and my own opinion is that they are notable. i've checked about their "mention charted hit on a national music chart" HERE and it's true that they had a charted hit named LANGA MINE, don't know what does it mean that, but i heard the song on their site www.kord.ro and it's a good song. i've checked too about their appearence on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) and it's truly notable and the other example about the member Stefan Corbu that he was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable Nicoleta Alexandru it's true too. So, i think that it's ok to not remove this article and i delete by myself the AfD message because i read privacy policy and it's permited to do that when you find notable source about the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.220.29 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoltzfus Spreaders

Corporation that doesn't seem notable. There are about 900 Google hits for "Stoltzfus Spreaders", which is low, and the article doesn't provide significant evidence of notability Superm401 - Talk 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination and WP:NOTE. --Simple Paradox 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no independent sources, and no other showing of notability per WP:CORP; and while this is an industrial manufacturing business, it doesn't sound like it makes many consumer products of a sort that are going to receive widespread reviews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 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 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty b

I cannot verify any of this article's content, apart from the statement that the subject won an award. But the "about us" page of the award's web site tells us that the awards are given to acts that "want to gain exposure" as "the next big thing". In other words, it's pure promotion for acts that haven't done anything yet. (The article tells us that this person hasn't done anything yet, too.) There are no independent sources that can verify anything else at all about this person. Indeed, there are no sources at all. The only source connected with the subject is apparently this article. The article tells us that that this person has xyr own record label named "Grind Hustle". From the fact that this article was created by GrindHustle (talk · contribs), I conclude that this is the subject's own autobiography, being written by the subject xyrself directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability is a) he holds a job and b) he won some insiginifcant internet award. I see no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources, so there is no evidence of notability yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Until he is actually signed, sealed and delivered, he is not notable. But he could be the next big thing. Or not. Either way, doesn't belong here (yet). Keeper | 76 22:30, 18 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 Nom withdrawn and rename per the several excellent arguments presented in the last half of the discussion, with no prejudice against future AfDs. (non-admin close) —Travis ^talk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restaurants in the United States

List of restaurants in the United States? This is an entirely unmanageable list that will never be up-to-date. A list of restaurants in New York City would be impossible, much less this one. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dining guide. —Travis ^talk 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is clearly excessive. Superm401 - Talk 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly unfinishable and unmaintainable list. sho y 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everyone on this one. It's the definition of indiscriminate, and it really is unmaintainable; restaurant chains come and go. This is one of those instances where a Category serves the same purpose, and does it better. I imagine that there will be the argument that a list points out the redlinks which don't have articles, but with the corporate editing of Wikipedia, and the feeling that restaurant chains are generally notable, I don't think that this would be a problem. Mandsford (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of such redlinks would be an article development resource rather than an actual part of the encyclopaedia intended for readers. The project namespace can be used for such lists. Moreover, categories do have talk pages. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my. It's not indiscriminate - what more do you want? List of restaurants in the united states. No more, no less. Completely dynamic, new restaurants open each week, and we shouldn't have to keep a list like this up to date. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow... unmanagable, indescriminate list... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We don't need such list on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As per nom. Wikipedia does not need this. Mattie ^TK 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. I'd expect this list to be around the million entry mark. Completely unmaintainable. MLA (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Wikipedia is not a list". --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until it includes the South Side Diner in New Albany, Indiana, it is going to be incomplete, and no doubt there are hundreds of other restaurants of equal local reknown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OMFG, is someone out there smoking Arkansas Polio Weed? There are about two hundred restaurants in the city in which I live (Boston's immediate southern suburb). Hell, there are seven or eight within five minutes walking distance of me. A genuine list strikes me as something that would eat up a measurable percentage of Wikipedia's server capacity, for pity's sake. RGTraynor 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you of the olf french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Lobojo (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete as an indiscriminate and unsourced list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*List of WHAT?!?!?! I have to presume the author was joking. Or about eight years old. Ψν^Psi_nu 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you too of the old french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Please consider striking your comment out. Lobojo (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea maxima culpa. Not only are you correct, I'm guilty as hell of the behavior DGG describes below. On actually looking at it past the first few "page downs", that took a heck of a lot of work, regardless of suitability. Opinion changed to right to vote self-revoked for bad behavior. Lesson learned. (BTW - the "eight year old" comment referred not to immaturity, but to one's view of the world that everything in sight is everything there is in the world at that age... not that it makes it any fairer.) Ψν^Psi_nu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Um, yeah. Delete. I feel bad for the article's creator. That must've taken a long time. I hope xe edits/creates some good articles in the future (regardless of age.) Keeper | 76
Delete. I don't have to say once more why, have I? Is this going to be some kind of record for the largest snowball? Goochelaar (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really can't see why it should be deleted - it does not break any wiki rules. It is just one of those incomplete lists. "Indiscriminate" - fix that by creating criteria of inclusion. "Unsourced" - source it! "Incomplete" - comlete it! The list dosent need to include every eatery, only the notable ones, IE the ones that have articles! Lobojo (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is why the list should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a directory, which is exactly what this list is. Mh29255 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, this isn't a directory. That would a list of all resteraunts. This is just a list of of the notable ones. It is like a category just as a list to enable more detail. It should be renamed famous/notable eateries perhaps. Lobojo (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, this is nothing more than a directory similar to the white pages in a telephone book, which is specifically prohibited in Wikipedia is not a directory. The list further violates Wikipedia is not a directory by containing non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Mh29255 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho there are no phon enumbers and almost all the links are blue! It just needs to b erenamed to list of notable resteraunt chains or some such. Certainly the cross cats here are notable - fast food in the US not notable? Muslims who work for the NFL, that is not good, Lobojo (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye, bye. Not exactly sure what your final non sequitur is referring to and don't want to know. Mh29255 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello, it wasn't a non sequitur, I was giving you an exmaple of what a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" is. "Resteraunt chains in the US" is not such a example. This article needs to be renamed. Can I do that now please? Lobojo (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Restaurant Chains in the United States. that's what the actual contents is. Its limited to regional ones--not just those in a single metropolitan area. Almost nobody here seems to have actually clicked on even a few links enough to see the actual contents of the article. It's easier to make fun of it. A list of chains is finite and supportable. Many of the red links are apparently fairly notable chains that could have articles. I'm not happy with the classification, especially since some seem to be in multiple groups. The table at the end is a very ambitious way to improve it--I dont know if it is practical for a list this size. Keep and name and explain and fix. DGG (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the Chef and Delete - do I need explain the problems ??? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strong rename to List of restaurant chains in the United States. I agree with DGG's argument. The title does make this article vulnerble to a lot of mockery, because a list of each and every restaurant would be obviously unmaintainable. However, the list of chains is much shorter, and serves a fine and sensible navigational purpose. The list is written as a list, not a directory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After reading DGG's comment, I took another look at the article. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I probably didn't look closely enough at the article when I first nominated it and now agree that a rename would be a good solution. —Travis ^talk 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Guilty and contrite as well. I will go make three substantive edits to Hail Mary as a penance. Ψν^Psi_nu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite claims of salvation above, this still turns my screen a decidedly yellow colour. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and still delete. Thanks DGG, for the reminder that civility is important. (and a gentle prod - telling everyone here that they've made bad faith opinions is a bit incivil as well.) Some people are apologizing here, so perhaps it was appropriate. Yes, we shouldn't be making fun of the article or the creator. However, I stand by my opinion as this list already exists in Wikipedia at List of restaurant chains, which has been here since 2004. It is edited about once per week, usually by someone adding a weblink to their local diner and then eventually reverted. It is hopelessly filled with redlinks. It's been tagged with various tags here and there about wikify this or WP:EL that or WP:NOT these. It is also ridiculously long, broken out by COUNTRY (which is more appropriate for Wikipedia I suppose -not just US-centric), and should also be deleted, IMO. If not, then possibly some of the more notable chains listed here can be added to that one. Keeper | 76 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me build on DGG's suggestion. Let's call it List of major restaurant chains in the United States. We don't want a two-restaurant chain in there either. A 10-restaurant chain would be good enough for that list, even if they're all in the same city. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could then be linked to from a pruned List of restaurant chains, I suppose. —Travis ^talk 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per DGG et al. For those who can't read any French, basically, please, sir, don't bite the newbies. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen several people use "WP:BITE" as a justification for keeping an article; not just this one but others as well. As if to say "it was created by someone who doesn't know any better, so its OK to keep the article so we don't drive them off." That seems a spurious justification. Why does the article's raison d'etre depend on who created it (for anyone that does know French). There are ways of keeping new users contributing positively to the encyclopedia without allowing blatant disregard for established convention. Deleting unworthy articles is not biting newbies...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a listing service nor a telephone book. Majoreditor (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those opining to keep this, what exactly is this unmanageable list accomplishing, regardless of what we name it, that isn't already accomplished in Category:Restaurants. If you go there, you'll notice that it has no less than 14 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants by country. If you go there, you get no less than 55 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants in the United States. If you go there, you can see that each individual state has a category already. Why do we need a list called List of major restaurant chains in the United States, or any such naming, when it 1)has already existed since 2004, and 2) is already unmanageable/unmanaged? Keeper | 76 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list can contain information that cannot be expressed by categories; in this case, see the bottom table. –Pomte 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. As DGG notes, it's obvious that very few of those "arguing" delete have actually glanced at the article, as it consists of restaurant chains rather than "every restaurant in the world" as some seem to believe. Valid per WP:LIST, could easily be sourced, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unwise to try to read the minds of others. I for one voted for delete, even after noting it was about chains. In the U.S., even the number of restaurant chains is unmanagably high for a list of this purpose. Also, there exists Categories that serve this exact same purpose. There is no need to create a list that is substantially identical to a category. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll second that Jayron32, and add that I assume that JayHenry meant those that voted without reading. Xe did say most. A list, in this case (and yes, I've read and understand WP:LIST and WP:CLS. I know the pros and cons of Cats and Lists and Boxes. This is an unmanageable list. If it was manageable, it would have been managed already. Anyone here that has the mind of keep, have you bothered to look at the the list that has existed in really really bad shape since 2004?, (as long as we're accusing the other side of faithless "votes")... Keeper | 76 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I intend no disrespect to anyone, but the quality of the delete arguments does suggest that this article was not given more than a glance. It says in the very first sentence that it’s a list of notable restaurant chains. I don’t really see it is an assumption of bad faith to observe that there are a large number of comments that are not applicable to the actual article being discussed in this AfD, but instead refer to a hypothetical article that reading the title alone might imply exists, but in fact does not. The assertion that it could be handled by categories is also not accurate. Again, I’m not assuming anything when I say that List of Restaurants in the United States#Casual Dining could not be categorized, because it’s a table. And it’s not a perfect table, but if the people so gleefully voting delete and insulting the article creator instead pitched in and tried to improve it a little bit and see what happens it probably could have been a pretty good, and encyclopedic, table. Again, I mean no disrespect to those of you who are interested in engaging in discussion like Keeper and Jayron. But it’s actually a little bit tragic to me that most of the culture of AfD is so disinterested in improving our encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you JayHenry, for clarifying your message. I completely agree with you about "insulting the article creator.", and I stated as such in my very first comment in this thread. I also hope that you didn't feel disrespected per my comments as it was not my intention. It just seems that the keep "votes" have been equally "knee-jerk". Have you looked at the 2004 article?. I guess all I'm asking is for someone to tell me that this current "list", up for debate, is any different than that wholly unmanageable list that has been here for over 3 years. Yes, I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I love every minute of it. I am also here to be sure that the encyclopedia is not filled with articles that are unwieldy, unsalvagable, unmanageable, and have at least a hope of one day being featured, for really, isn't that the goal of every list/article? This list, IMHO, doesn't stand a chance. If it did, the previous attempt, as I've linked to 3 times now, would have accomplished it. It's just too big. It's too dynamic. It's too everything. It really doesn't belong here, IMHO. Keeper | 76 22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm?

Erm, wasn't this AfD Withdrawn by nom above? I am happy to help improve the article, but not if it is going to be deleted. I too echo the view of JayHenry. I feel that some of the delete votes above were simply people browsing the AFD list looking for somewhere to opine and make "witty" remarks. I saw this AfD, and voted Keep. It seemed so obvious after looking at the article for 10 seconds that I added my vote. 20 editors had already voted delete, with not a single word of dissent. If I had arrived 10 minutes later no doubt the article would have been snowballed, a large amount of information lost, and a potential new recruit to wikipedia alienated for no reason. Not upsetting newbies is not a reason to keep an article, but it is a reason to think creatively about how their many hours of selfless work can be used in some way. I am saddened to see that User:RGTraynor has yet to strike out he abusive comment above, the one that voets delete by cogently arguing "Oh My Fucking God". Sad. Lobojo (talk) 23:41, 21 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. Singu larity 03:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon Skye

This is a vocalist who, as near as I can tell, burned out as a teenager. Only claim to notability is who she shared a management company with, and only assertion of notability is Myspace pages. No reliable sources, never produced anything, and falls outside of WP:N accordingly. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No reliable sources to be found, virtually no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability. MLA (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: Quite aside from any other consideration, this is an orphaned article created by two SPAs over a year ago and not improved since. I also wonder whether this is a hoax article; her Myspace page is content-free, and if you Google "Rhiannon Skye" + N'Sync (not unreasonable, since a key part of her bio is her claim to having toured with them) you get only five hits, all from this article and four Wiki mirrors. RGTraynor 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per RGTraynor's good research. I also found nada. Keeper | 76 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed the redundancy from my nominatory note, fearing repercussions from the Department Of Redundancy Department. Hopefully I don't have to fill out eighty of the same form. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 19 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. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hudson Elementary School

This article on a Vancouver elementary school fails to establish notability under WP:SCHOOLS Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest WP:SCL instead? TerriersFan (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails to establish notability as nom stated. Article seems like nothing more than a bulletin board for upcoming events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with School District 39 Vancouver, its district. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have entries in Wikipedia for every mickey-mouse village and hamlet in the USA, yet people seek to delete a school's entry? Why? Markb (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because schools are not notable and do not belong in an encyclopedia unless they are special in some way. You want to start deleting non-notable towns in the U.S? I'll be right behind you. WP is not a directory, repository for school information, or atlas. Or at least it shouldn't be. Epthorn (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with J-stan. Scarian ^Talk 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Current consensus holds that nothing below a high school is self-evidently notable. RGTraynor 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: It's still the case that nothing at this level is self-evidently notable, and I'm vastly unimpressed by "famous alumni" (everyone famous went to school somewhere), but there are enough sourced assertions of notability now to warrant keeping. RGTraynor 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete, prefer merge~~. Please note that there is no consensus for which schools stay and which schools go. The current proposal is at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). WP:SCHOOLS, the nom's rationale here, is in fact a disambiguation page. However, that being said, this one doesn't seem notable by any standard - new, old, or proposed. Schools are notorious for "self-proclaiming" any awards they've received. The Henry Hudson website does no such thing. Keeper | 76 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep per improvements to article, sourcing done by DoubleBlue and TerriersFan. Keeper | 76 15:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Epthorn, but merge if needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on some of the compelling arguments already made but merging is not a bad idea either Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. Mh29255 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - fairly large school, lots of programs, good "report card" from the provincial 'crats. Merge to the school district of it's not quite there by consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - still being expanded but already well notable with 2 alumni and a notable history. TerriersFan (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite a well sourced and expanded article now, close to passing WP:N if it does not already. If the result is that there is consensus that the school is not notable enough for its own article; I suggest merging and re-directing into School District 39 Vancouver rather than deletion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic school in Vancouver (likely oldest elementary in Kitsilano) with history of serving immigrant families. The Alan King recollections that TerriersFan found are an interesting read. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to the nom, WP:SCHOOLS isn't a policy or guideline. WP:N is, and the school meets its notability standard at this point. I had no idea there were a good number of Sikhs in that part of the world as far back as the Depression. Interesting. Noroton (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian, the school is fairly large and appears to meet WP:N guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At most a Weak Keep - notability depends on "no corporal punishment", when that was usual and "offered course for non-English children", but are these factors notable enough. The article is better than many, but notability is still questionable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 23 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 Boldly redirected to Volta (album) per Bearcat (talk · contribs) and as nominator. This way, if the song is released as a single and does become notable on its own, the redirect can be reverted, and there will be no need to create a new article. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Flame Of Desire

Unconfirmed song from a future Björk album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention that one of the sources cited has retracted. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Sting_au Talk 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, rumors are not enough for an article. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because an article for this song was previously deleted months ago... I nominated it the first time. - eo (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who knows if this will ever come to be? Wait until it does Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to the article on the album. If and when it's released as a single, it can be re-split. If it never is, then it's worth noting the rumoured release on the album page anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future Björk album wha? Volta was released seven months ago, and "Dull Flame of Desire" is most certainly on that album. Until it's actually released as a single there's very little that's notable enough about it to merit a separate article, but let's get the reason straight: it's a song that already exists and just isn't especially notable yet, not an unverifiable future song or a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Redirect it to Volta (there's nothing to really merge, as the album's article already contains all the same info), but do so without prejudice against recreation if and when the single is actually released. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 20 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. east.718 at 02:14, December 18, 2007

Pixxie Wilkinson

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Simple Paradox 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Google hits whatsoever, not even blogs. Either completely non-notable or hoax. Joshdboz (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was already tagged for speedy before being nominated. As a matter of fact, TravisTX (talk · contribs) beat me to it. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above -Lemonflash_{(O_o)} 00:56, 18 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.

[1] "Clinical vampirism. A presentation of 3 cases and a re-evaluation of Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer'". S Afr Med J. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Clinical vampirism is named after the mythical vampire, and is a recognizable, although rare, clinical entity characterized by periodic compulsive blood-drinking, affinity with the dead and uncertain identity. It is hypothetically the expression of an inherited archaic myth, the act of taking blood being a ritual that gives temporary relief. From ancient times vampirists have given substance to belief in the existence of supernatural vampires. Four vampirists, including Haigh, the 'acid-bath murderer', are described.

[2] "Will those elusive vampires show up at a symposium dedicated to them?". Macleans. Retrieved 2007-12-18. In fact, there is a psychiatric condition called Renfield's Syndrome, named for the mentally deranged character in Bram Stoker's Dracula who craves spiders and bugs, believing them to be a life force. Those suffering from the syndrome have an erotic attraction to ingesting blood, which they see as a means of gaining immortality and other powers.

[3] "CSI:Committed". CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Kenny Valdez is in the Seclusion Room, strapped to a bed in a five-point restraint system, claiming he can "smell it!" Kenny suffers from Renfield's syndrome, a self-mutilator. The CSIs notice that even though Kenny has blood on his clothes, there is no spatter pattern. Click on the link and then click on the definition of RENFIELDS in the article

[cl-4] Ramsland, Katherine. "Renfield's Syndrome". Crime Library. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Psychiatrists are aware that there exists a behavior known as "clinical vampirism," which is a syndrome involving the delusion of actually being a vampire and feeling the need for blood. This arises not from fiction and film but from the erotic attraction to blood and the idea that it conveys certain powers, although the actual manifestation of the fantasy may be influenced by fiction. It develops through fantasies involving sexual excitement.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]