Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Luckyluke (talk | contribs)
5,754 edits
+international school
Nenyedi (talk | contribs)
2,850 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Creek Town Center}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American International School Hong Kong}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American International School Hong Kong}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb Tyler}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb Tyler}}

Revision as of 23:50, 26 August 2007

< August 25 August 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Creek Town Center

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

Recommended deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Mall does not appear to be notable, it is under construction and has no tenants. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited three articles from the St. Petersburg Times regarding the status and prominence of this mall. There is no reason this should be deleted. If you delete this article, delete every other article about malls along with it. Thank you.Blaze33541 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the articles do show sufficient local notability, though they seem almost indistinguishable from PR in their contents. DGG (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep megamall that makes specific claims of notability in the article supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Despite the widely held misinterpretation that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits any event or development that will occur at any point in the future, the policy actually states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Every statement is verifiably sourced and referenced, and would more than meet Wikipedia standards of notability if the mall had already been built. Alansohn 00:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn, I fully concur. There is no speculation regarding this project. The construction is underway, occuring as we speak. Although on a grander scale, the project of Burj Dubai draws comparison to this. Not yet completed, but well underway with solid and definite progress as pointed out by published sources.Blaze33541 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per DGG. Doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL; every claim in the article is sourced to a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it part of the Globex Corporation...? Lugnuts 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources say all permits received, completion expected 2008, super-regional at 1.3 to 1.5 million square feet, "2nd largest in region". Precedent in 2007 has been the keeping of superregional malls. Edison 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Edison, there is sufficient notability demonstrated here. Burntsauce 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Edison. The nom seems to have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. --Oakshade 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus possible due to multi-nomination. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American International School Hong Kong

American International School Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability has been established. Just another international school in another foreign country. Luke! 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all international schools in Hong Kong with no assertion to notability.

California School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Korean International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yew Chung International School of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anyway, putting these as a bundled nomination doesn't seem to have been a particularly good idea, the only thing they have in common is that they're all "international" schools located in the same city. cab 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Tyler

Non-notable former college football player, only reached the semi-proffesional leagues, fail WP:BIO Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Played for Houma Bayou Bucks (I added wikilink when reading article). They were a pro indoor team. While I totally agree that this is kinda weak, this meets policy here and pretty much every player than played for an indoor team gets a pass to be on wikipedia, just as any AAA baseball player does. Needs references and verfication, but that isn't a reason to delete. Now with the wikilink to his former team (which is notable by wikipedia standards) I think you have to keep him. Pharmboy 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just a minor league football league, not "fully proffesional" as required by WP:BIO, unlike the AAA which is fully proffesional, of course the team and the league is notable, but not the players. There is also consensus in AFD supporting that they aren't notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Royal Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you know, the results of a AFD aren't policy for future decisions, and honestly, I would have to disagree with the result of that AFD anyway. Arena football IS the minors for all intent and purposes, it is televised, and the subject and teams are notable enough to be articles here. We just disagree about threshold of what is "professional" enough, and I would rather err on the side of being inclusive rather than exclusive when it comes to areas like sports, music and the arts as it is often in the eye of the beholder. Pharmboy 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a american sports expert I think you may have gotten confused with another league, this league is not Arena Football League, (which is the fully proffesional minor league, and those are the players who meet BIO somewhat), the league he used to play for was just an average semi-proffesional league that isn't affiliated with them and there are tons of them with thousands of players. Jaranda wat's sup 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again same with tens of thousands of others that never reached the pros Jaranda wat's sup 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable subject engaging in self-promotion. I didn't see a cite from the Globe and Mail, and the other refs aren't third-party sources. He's not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs – there's no comparison except all three are male. KrakatoaKatie 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Evoy

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

procedural nomination This was previously considered at AFD Jan-Feb 2007 (User:The Epopt) and was nominated for WP:PROD-based deletion in Aug 2007 (User:Hu12). The new nomination was accompanied with the reason for deletion "Self-promotion, Spam, NN". The old nomination was originally a speedy deletion candidate; it was taken to AFD with the reason for deletion "This short bio reads like a résumé or perhaps spam." The outcome of the AFD was 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Self promotion, spam, and I am confused how you get no consensus on an AFD. Even the claims of notability are totally vague and don't provide enough info to even assert notability. It just says 'he is important' without asserting the meat of WHY. He is "highly regarded", and yes, the rest of the article is also weasel words. No brainer, IMO, this is speedy. Pharmboy 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~ While I started this article a while back there have been a lot of contributions (revisions and reverts) since then. The bio was made shorter due not wanting to repeat what could be found in the cited articles. Looking at a page like that of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, however, it would seem that the repetition of information is accepted for bios. If this is correct, then the page could conform to a "Jobs/Gates" format prior to deletion. Or am I missing the point of bios? This is my first one so it's possible. Thanks for any input you can provide! Maltiti2005 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications have been made to the article. They address the apparent need for additional content, further proof of notability and standardized "bio format." Placeholders have been added for future additions. Maltiti2005 09:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia is not a democracy so just 'voting' is meaningless. Consensus != majority vote, and a vote without explanation is not a vote at all. Pharmboy 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article cites two references in which Ken Evoy is the primary subject of the article. The Globe and Mail is a major Canadian national paper and the Montreal Gazette is a major Montreal daily so this satisifies WP:BIO for multiple articles from reliable sources. -- Whpq 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep due to all votes (except the nom) have been keep. Non-admin closure.--JForget 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wickersham

Non-notable former college football player, never reached NFL and only training camp in the CFL, fails WP:BIO and no Reliable, independent sources, prod removed Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wickersham played, and stared, at LSU. He was the number 3 top performer in the SEC at the time. One of the top players at one of the top schools in what is arguably the toughest football league in the nation. He certainly played at the highest level of amateur sports per WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 02:28, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep 3 year starter at a major D1 program is notable, plus there are several instances of coverage on Google News Corpx 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's about the same hits as most other college football players Jaranda wat's sup 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom Keep per JodyB Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Played at high enough level and has enough coverage in reliable sources. Davewild 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Starting quarterbacks are notable, especially for a major, ranked (at the time) program per the article; especially for a 3-year starter. Being drafted (by the NFL) and playing in the CFL are just pile-ons. Subject is needed for completeness of the topic. If this were a lineman we wouldn't be having this discussion. MECU≈talk 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. He never played in any of them though, got as far as training camp before he was cut. He was drafted in such an high round that he had no chance. Jaranda wat's sup 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. The player had a significant career at the top level in American college football --a sport which is, as anyone who lives in America and pays attention to the sport can attest-- as big a sport as any pro league, and bigger than smaller professional leagues such as Soccer or even Hockey. --Bobak 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same with many thousands of people that played college football, they aren't notable. Jaranda wat's sup 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to quote from WP:BIO which is the guideline on point here: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." I cannot imagine a higher level of amateur sports than NCAA D1 football. If you can I would love to know what it is. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some heavy discussion on that in the talk that it's too subjective. Jaranda wat's sup 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National U

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

Defunct student magazine thar never achieved any notability and with no sources fails WP:V. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Non-admin closure. :: maelgwn - talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Times

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

Defunct student newspaper that never achieved any notability. Fails WP:V due to lack of sources. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was a university newspaper that was in regular publication for more than forty years. This is a bogus nomination - the nominator has randomly nominated a bunch of newspapers asserting "never achieved any notability" without the slightest research or evidence. Rebecca 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Rebecca. Twenty Years 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not believe the nominators assertions - unless they know something about australian history sources that I do not know about - more evidence of what in fact has been checked is needed to make this a valid Afd nomination or not SatuSuro 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Clearly it's notable, per what Rebecca told us. But if it was around for 40 years, I'm sure there must be some sources that discuss it. Add them. — Giggy 08:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Hard to understand the rationale for "never achieved any notability". I assume the nominator has made a simple error. Lankiveil 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel graphics

Disney Channel graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research about a subject which is not encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is an article on the Slogan's of McDonald's but it needs a fair bit of work. I could make a case for Chevy being a marketing emblem in itself. But I'd suggest doing a review of their marketing practices instead. And believe it or not, it could be sourced. Their advertising is often in the news. FrozenPurpleCube 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DISCUSSINGANISSUEBROUGHTUPBYANOTHEREDITORWITHOUTREALLYCARINGABOUTTHEARTICLEITSELF. Sheesh. Forgive me for making a comment that I thought might be informative for them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a dick. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I make the same request of you. I feel your comment was dickish. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as indiscriminant collection of information. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gateway products

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

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, aging list of Gateway products. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipeidia isn't an advertising medium. Mikeblas 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Melsaran (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...In Pains

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

Contested prod. Album does not appear to be the subject of any significant independent coverage, and article is essentially a track list. Under those cirucmstances, WP:MUSIC, while vague, suggests that the album may be non-notable. MastCell Talk 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the band is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (they must be, they are here and you didn't AFD them) then their released albums are notable. MANY bands have albums listed here with no more info than just the tracks, so this is consistant. Yes, not ideal, but the norm. Pharmboy 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC; if the band is notable, then generally their albums are notable. A look at Cadaver (band) suggests that they meet at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC, so the album stays. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My impression (in response to this and the above comment) is that notability of a band does not make all of their albums automatically notable. The WP:MUSIC guideline is a bit vague about albums, but it would seem that (in keeping with other notability guidelines) there needs to be some sort of independent secondary-source coverage for an album to warrant its own article. Track-list articles (of which this is one) seem to be deletion material. Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't work on this area much. MastCell Talk 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment My claim that if the band is notable, then the album is, is a matter of experience rather than policy. I agree that 3rd party verification should be on any article but I have found myself being a bit less of a hard ass on these points simply because WP:RS is hard to apply in a strict sense to any of the arts. ie: it seems practical to cut some slack on a single album if the band itself is notable as what makes a single album notable is much harder to define, whereas what makes a BAND notable is easier to determine. Again, not policy, per se, but my own pragmatic compromise here. Most albums from lesser known bands (but notable per policy) don't have coverage from media that meets RS strickly anyway. If we get really strict on WP:RS, most of the album entries would disappear on wikipedia. Pharmboy 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess my question, then, is how we can build an encyclopedic article (i.e. something beyond a dressed-up track list) if the album has no outside coverage to speak of. Even if there were some evidence that it had charted somewhere, or there was some story behind it that was relevant to the band's career, that might be one thing. But here I'm just not seeing anything to expand the article or encyclopedize it with. MastCell Talk 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As someone who works on articles about obscure metal bands, I can assure you it is important that we have these articles. However, in response to the specific point about sources/significance- there is a review of the album here, another here, and is described as significant in terms of genre here- "It [referring to a different album] is a great slab of death metal, a modern classic maintaining the heritage from the heydays of Norwegian old school death metal, where albums such as Darkthrone's 'Soulside Journey' and Cadaver's 'In Pains' saw the darkness of daytime." Other mentions include a short review here and constant references to this album being one of the few by the band. J Milburn 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I agree with the nominator that the key issue seems to be coverage in third-party sources ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" - WP:MUSIC). Does anyone know of such sources? Jakew 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No different than many of our other album articles Mbisanz 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the one who contested the prod. A studio album by a notable band, released by a notable record label. J Milburn 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's fine, with the sources and context you've provided above, the article probably passes WP:MUSIC and this AfD can probably be closed. I know you're busy like all of us, but if you have a chance to include those refs and context in the article so that it's more than just a track list, that would be very helpful. Thanks for looking into it. MastCell Talk 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Owls. MastCell Talk 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigwidgeon

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

Even though certine things in the Harry Potter books do deserve their own articles, this dosent, the character dosent play a "Major" role in the books at all and there is hardly any information. I think the information that is coved in the Ron Weasley article clearly covers this topic as well. **Ko2007** 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Record of the Day

Record of the Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You'd think with such phrases as "Record of the Day is also acknowledged for unearthing unheard artists and bands through their daily audio feature" and "The Record of the Day online message board that accompanies the magazine online has achieved cult status" this page would have references. Or that I could find reliable sources via a google search. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Committee

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

Non-notable rap group. Has been tag for "this article may not satisfy the notability guideline" since Feb 2007. No references either. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect & Merge. This doesn't seem to be developing and is otherwise a dicdef with no real life sourced cited. We already have this at the list of blogging terms so a redirect and merge (help yourselves) seems the sensible course for a permanent semi-stub. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogroll

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

Per WP:DICT and WP:NEO. The result of the debate nearly two years ago was Keep, but the page has improved little if any since then. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep: evidence of significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources has been provided (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dylan_Howard#H), satisfying Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, most established users commenting after evidence of such coverage was provided at this AFD have favored retention of the article; the nominator has withdrawn the nomination [6]. John254 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Howard

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

I think this does not meet WP:NN. Brusegadi 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Firstly, this article has to meet notoriety as a person not as a subject, see WP:BIO. As a "Creative Professional" / Journalist, Dylan has played a significant role in the "Illicit Drugs in the AFL" story, and what has happened over the last few days [7] has seen some of that vindicated. His place in this should be noted! Bcollier 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By WP:NN I mean WP:BIO since it is what applies here. The point is that the article does not establish notability by any of the guidelines mentioned in BIO. Am i missing something? Is he frequently cited? If so, make it known! As the article stands it only makes a vague mention of a sport's cheat, says the guy is controversial and does not really say why; and it may violate WP:BLP because it makes a claim about some guy being accused of cheating without providing reliable resources (I added ref tags for that)... It seems messy and if it belongs, it probably needs to be rewritten. Brusegadi 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Granted Brusegadi the article isn't well written and needs some work. But until this AfD is resolved, it is pointless to work on the article especially if in 1 or 2 days time it is decided to delete this article. I am happy to do the work, but just don't want to waste my time if the consensus is to delete. Cheers Bcollier 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Seven News. Notability of sportscasters is highly subjective. Cary Bass demandez 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Firstly Bastique, this guy isn't a sportscaster, as the general definition of that term is "someone who commentates or calls a game for radio, TV or internet broadcasts". This guy is a journalist, and correct me if I am wrong, but we would have to delete alot of living person's bio's due to this reason. This reporter has recently contributed quite alot to the debate surrounding illicit drug use in the AFL. Some might argue this reporters methods, but there is no doubting his notoriety! Bcollier 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK Giggy, but you know that this guy's story and its fallout is leading all the news bulletins and current affairs programs across all channel's including the ABC, Ch9 & Ch10. Plus he has been written up and his reports commented on in many national newspapers and has been given many column inches. I can link all the articles here if you like, but would rather do it in the actual WP article. I am not going to correct and fix the article until this "Delete"/"Don't Delete" issue is settled. CHeers Bcollier 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. His name is currently splashed all over the news in relation to a recent story in which he published the confidential medical records of two AFL players who have twice tested positive to recreational drugs. This is alleged by some to be a major breach of journalistic code of practice and ethics, and has resulted in an injunction against further publication, and a major rift between the AFLPA and Channel Seven, including threats of AFL players boycotting the Brownlow Medal. In short, this guy has both created, and himself become the subject of, back page news in Australia all this week. Surely that's notable enough. [8][9][10][11][12] Hesperian 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Breaking news: The AFL have just announced that they will no longer deal with Howard because he claimed that they had approved his story. The Howard headlines continue to roll in.... Hesperian 06:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. This guy is not notable, and never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.178.83 (talk) 16:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Note this editor has made only 4 edits over a 3 year period, though it may be an established editor who wasnt logged in. Gnangarra 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Agree with Hesperian that the current controversy and the coverage of his actions in this latest story probably make him notable enough for an article. My concern is where we can find reliable sources with enough information so that the article does not focus on this one issue alone and that the article complies with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I fear this may be difficult. -- Mattinbgn\ talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • keep subject is a complex case, his story may be more notable in the short term than the person but atm neither a sufficiently distinguishable to be clearer as to what the stronger subject maybe. pure speculation on my part is his profession is more likely with time to establish separate notability. Either way there is enough notability it just needs time to establish the correct format/location for the article. Gnangarra 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep* whilst his actions and that of seven maybe questionable, it is still newsworthy!!!! who is requesting the deletion the afl or one of its friends??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.248.37 (talk) 21:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC) — 124.168.248.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • strong keep* The notability of the reporter is without question, in the same way Craig Hutchison is also attrubited to questionable journalistic practices. Redmulletfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmulletfish (talk • contribs) 05:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC) — Redmulletfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • TIME TO WRAP THIS UP - I think that there is enough evidence that this article is relevant and worthy of a place in WP and enough support above. Can we wrap this AfD up and get on with editing the article up to WP standards? Cheers Bcollier 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've got no doubt the subject is notable enough. I believe that more information will come to light as the Medical Records scandal unfolds. The police are currently conducting an inquiry into this journalist. Don't delete the article. However, the article does need a clean-up. It needs better references, as various news reports have directly linked D.H to the scandal. So, this journalist is at the centre of a very big scandal, whichever way the police inquiry goes. The story, and the commentary about D.H is going to increase. Lester2 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination - The article has improved considerably so I will like to withdraw the nomination. Now it is a matter of providing a few links, but that is not enough reason for an Afd. Thanks for all those who improved it, as I was unable to find info on the subject. Good day, Brusegadi 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Higgins-Norman

AfDs for this article:
James O'Higgins-Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article with unsupported assertion of notability. previous Speedy nom failed as there is an assertion of notability. Delete as fails WP:BIO in general and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular. Springnuts 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Insufficient independant sources to meet WP:MUSIC. No objection to recreation as and when the subject does become notable. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Ballestrini

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

Non-notable musician who doesn't meet anything close to WP:MUSIC. The article's creator has constantly removed any and all CSD and notability template tags in spite of several warnings. Has also contravened the WP:3RR rule several times. I've nominated this AFD for notability and also to stop an edit war occurring WebHamster 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coquet-Shack is a completely independent web site. It has no affiliations with ANY music label or artist. It is regarded by the Country Music Industry as an honest (sometimes too honest) reviews web site. We can produce dozens of e-mails to prove that point. So, Ten Pound Hammer, beware impugning our reputation or face legal action against yourself and this web site. John D Lewis, for and on behalf of Dawn Lewis, owner, Coquet-Shack.com. (unsigned comment was added by Shackman (talk •contribs))
FYI - personal opinions when stated as opinions and clearly not stated as fact are not subject to libel laws regardless of the media they are published on. I gather the US is rather protective of its citizens' rights to free speech and doesn't look kindly on people who try to put that down with empty threats.--WebHamster 10:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Ballestrini entry: Hey, bin it. The we can all be absolutely certain that Wikipedia is just another MySpace, a quasi-user based site which is in fact, a publicity machine for the big labels who NEVER sign new artists before they've been tried out on smaller independent labels. And since a Wikipedia criterion for NOTABILITY is charting in a major national chart, we strongly suggest you check out Music Row's Country charts for the last six months. Ballestrina (an appalling artist with an appalling debut single,) meets that criterion. John D Lewis, for and on behalf of Dawn Lewis, owner, Coquet-Shack.com. {unsigned comment was added by Shackman (talk •contribs))
One single does not constitute notabiity. Suggest bringing the article back when notability is established per Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. ♫ Cricket02 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: The one independent source/review provided,coquet-shack.com, albeit reliable, is trivial at best, and says: "If the single sells, her career will take off.", so it is not even known yet if the single will even sell. Again, wait and see how this artist does, and bring back at a later time. ♫ Cricket02 07:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHOA BOYS! Shackman DID sign the entries above: Shackman is JOHN D LEWIS.
...and possibly another couple of user names too. See talk page for details. --WebHamster 16:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Cricket02 : You shopuld get your head round reality before mouthing off like that. NO-ONE can know, before a single is released for sale to the public, whether it WILL DEFINTELY sell well or not. Take Garth Brook's last single. One of the biggest names in Country music and it didn't even make the charts! It didn't sell well. Our comment on Ballestrini is neither trival, nor spurious. It is a genuinely held opinion of one of our reviewers, a guy who has been producing, recording and publishing Country music for more than 34 years. He's an industry expert and I'd say his opinion is anything BUT trivial. Now, tell us what the weather's going to be like tomorrow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackman (talk • contribs) 06:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It will be either wet or dry, does that mean I have a career ahead of me if correct? --WebHamster 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly hope that she does do well and wish her every success. Until then, her notability is not yet established for inclusion in this encyclopedia per WP:BIO and WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The label itself is further down today's list for AFD, it doesn't have any notability either. WebHamster 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The label doesn't look notable to me - it was started last year. The tour is a radio tour - what's a radio tour, just interviews? No other sign of notability. MarkinBoston 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible KEEP/Weak DELETE. I think that the article is possibly salvagable. An artist signed to a label with notable artists and having referenced, reliable independent sources, while not a household name, may be notable. BaldDee 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [COMMENT to WebHamster, I think it's a little odd that you nominated both articles for deletion, then pointed to each other's nominations as evidence of the non-notability of the subject of the nom. I'm not questioning your motives, but it gives me pause to wonder... Why not simply state, "I nominated both articles for deletion because they were both non-notable." or something similar. If another editor had nominated one of the articles, your statement would carry slightly more weight as an argument. As is, in nom Y you're saying "See nom X" and in nom X you're saying "See nom Y"]BaldDee 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was the way I chose to word it, you would have chosen your way, vive le difference. WebHamster 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for perspective BaldDee has been shown to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been stalking me and making numerous bad faith AFDs against my articles--WebHamster 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsigned comment was added by 75.2.209.103 (talk•contribs) (sole contributions have been to articles in question)
Comment for perspective: This anonymous user is actually the creator of the article under discussion. --WebHamster 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all completely irrelevant and childish to this discussion on whether this artist is notable for inclusion, based on guidelines alone, and not opinion, and should end here. ♫ Cricket02 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that AfD discussions should be based on guidelines/policies more than opinions. Look at WP's Deletion policy. --Neigel von Teighen 10:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold the Palm Tree

Arnold the Palm Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can find absolutely nothing else about this character. While the claims may be true, this article faces a serious verifiability problem - and a likely notability one too. The Evil Spartan 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tellius

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

Doesn't assert any notability. Anything worth mentioning can be summarised on the main page Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fictional location. Kariteh 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. Indiscriminate collection of information, no out of universe content. User:Krator (t c) 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no out-of-universe context (design history, etc); also contains bits of original research here and there. Marasmusine 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Canney, keep Pate and Halloran. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Canney has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability, and there was a clear consensus that his page should be deleted. Pate (Secretary of State) and Halloran (member of state legislature) both meet the standard, there was a majority for keeping them, and there was a failure of the deleters to effectively address the question as to why WP:BIO should be overridden. TerriersFan 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Canney

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl is also nominating the following related pages because of lack of notability. These are all articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles.OfficeGirl 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Pate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Kay Halloran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don seems to have served as mayor without doing anything notable. Unless he's the same guy who invented the Leech Lake Knife. :) MarkBul 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're also debating Pate and Halloran: Strong keep on both of them. Note that Pate is a former Iowa Secretary of State, that Halloran is a former state legislator, and that WP:BIO says, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Of course, the position of mayor isn't enough, but the position of Secretary of State is definitely a significant statewide office, and a former state legislator is a former member of a state legislature. I was aware of these two articles when I nominated the other three, but purposely didn't nominate them. Nyttend 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Canney, keep Pate and Halloran. Canney's article does not indicate a wider notability outside Cedar Rapids. As Pate and Halloran have had a wider impact on Iowa politics and they meet WP:BIO, their articles should be kept. As a general principle, bulk nominations should be minimised so that we can have a look at each article on its merits. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pate and Halloran for the reasons above. Delete Canney with no prejudice against recreation of significant coverage can be demonstrated (Cedar Rapids is hardly a "small town", and I'd be very surprised if somebody could become its mayor without receiving significant coverage; however there's not evidence of this in the current Canney article). Sarcasticidealist 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep all Cedar Rapids (population 120,000) is a small city by population, but still the 2nd largest in Iowa. Mayors of large cities are certainly notable, and I think this probably counts. DGG (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yannismarou 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Serbousek

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

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that he was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation with proper sourcing. Eleland 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The relevant part of WP:BIO accords notability to "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.". There is no evidence that Clancey has met this requirement, the article contains no independent notability (being the first female mayor is insufficient), and there was a clear consensus that her page should be deleted. TerriersFan 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Clancey

Notability says, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article provides no sources and no claims that she was anything but a local elected official. Nyttend 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability, and DELETE all the other articles created for the other mayors and former mayors of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It looks like the people working on the Cedar Rapids article are looking for ways to satisfy a "What links here" search on their town's article. Their town's article is notable and well organized enough without the need for the mayor articles. Keep the town article but lose the mayors' articles. OfficeGirl 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation with proper sourcing. Eleland 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per narrow scope of notability. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list small town mayors. Corpx 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Motorola products

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

List of some products (but not others, with no rationale) from Motorola. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and an arbitrary collection of information. As such, easy to feel like it's just advertising. Mikeblas 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a (product) directory. Jakew 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory, however, this might be able to become a category. Useight 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for ad fliers.--JForget 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Motorola has been around for many decades, and this unreferenced article/catalog just lists current products and then says "Vintage Equipment. Myriad radio and television receivers." Very superficial and arbitrary listing. Edison 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per my argument on the Nokia list. I really don't understand why this is considered an ad directory. It provides information on products not notable enough to have their own article, and simply needs referencing. Rwhealey 02:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.
    • This seems perfectly in keeping with the letter and spirit of WP:LIST - it provides both structured information as well as navigation (surveying the product history of Motorola).
    • Motorola is definitely a notable company. Many of their products are notable (witness the considerable number of bluelinks in the list). Listing all of their products in the main Motorola article would be infeasible.
    • This list is nicely formatted, separating things by category, providing overview information, and links to individual products.
    • Maybe the various redlinks should be de-linked, as I don't think we need articles on every thing Motorola ever made. But that doesn't mean "delete the whole thing".
    • Yes, this list is incomplete. So are hundreds or thousands more. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, Perfection is not required; an incomplete list is okay. Deleting this list means it cannot be improved to be more complete, so I don't see how that helps.
    • I don't see how this can be considered an advertisement, when all it does is list information and link to a variety of existing articles.
    • It seems to avoid being Wikipedia:Listcruft. It's not an indiscriminate collection; it's a list of a notable company's products. It is verifiable. It is maintainable and limited to Motorola products. It has content beyond a category, by providing structure and overview info.
    • —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The point about the article being incomplete has more to do with this being a completely arbitrary collection of Motorola products. The most notable products are missing, and this really is just a list for cell phone fans. Motorola's 6809 series of microprocessors is one of the most widely used processors today, vastly outselling the Pentium. It's not in this list, nor are any of the company's notable semiconductor products.
Since there's no rational guideline for inclusion, then this is an arbitrary list and absolutely not what WP:LIST is about. Imagine that it's 15 years earlier. Instead of being full of cell phones, this article would be full of pagers. In 15 years, we'll wonder why we hvae tens of dozens of articles about cell phones. -- Mikeblas 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You seem to be arguing from the premise that "the page will never change". As I noted, we have have hundreds of lists that need expansion. It is perfectly okay for a page to start small and be improved. • It does look like the list creator mainly knew about cell phones, but so what? We do not require editors to have comprehensive knowledge of every page they touch. I will improve this list, if I am allowed. • I suppose we might want to have a policy of "No lists of a single company's products", but this AfD is not the place to decide such a policy. • Finally, your point about the semiconductors is totally bogus. This list explicitly states that such are now part of List of Freescale products, and sure enough, the 6809 is there. Did you even look?  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response'. You're allowed to improve the article right now, and have always been allowed to do so. Yep; I looked. I hope you'll forgive me for not finding the single sentence (or two?) buried amid all the other advertising. -- Mikeblas 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The point with "allowed" was that if the list is going to be deleted, it cannot be improved. I just found this thing yesterday. • It seems that an assumption in your argument is that any list of products is "advertising" and thus should be deleted. This search would seem to indicate that we have many, many such lists. • While there is only the one sentence directing you to the current holder of those products, it is given in a top-level heading, "semiconductors" and appears as such in the ToC. I'm not really sure what more could be done. Suggestions? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the list into multiple lists might indeed be a good idea. It would also help highlight List of Motorola products#Semiconductors, which states that Moto sold that stuff to List of Freescale products. You're the second person to miss that note, so I have to think it's a real problem. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup This list could benefit from better organization and annotation of specific product lines. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep For a person to come across this list, they would have to search for it deliberately--as opposed to the advertisement coming to them. I find this list useful for finding past products that are no longer available on the company's website. Instead of destroying articles, Wikipedians should be improving them, and this article already has an extensive index, we shouldn't waste it all. Drant 05:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (with possibility of merge or other rearrangement). Cool Hand Luke 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Titanic (1997)

List of characters in Titanic (1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of characters from the movie Titanic, contested prod so bringing it to AfD. This may garner lots of enthusiastic WP:ILIKEIT support, but it's hard to see how these character lists accord with WP:LIST and WP:WAF. Eusebeus 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I do agree with the cleanup concerns expressed below. FrozenPurpleCube 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is an existing list there. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep - list is too big to merge back and many of the characters are notable. Please don't ruin somebody's hard work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hard work would be mine :( Superior1 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This name is more specific. There's more than one Titanic film. Superior1 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—why does an extremely notable film need more space to describe its plot? By that logic, Wikipedia—an encyclopedia—would be taking the stance that popularity must stem from lengthy and/or deep plots. (This is one of many reasons why notability is not inherited.) The key is to find real world content to supplement the plot summary—this is how we fairly show that a subtopic needs a subarticle. Any skilled business or technical writer can summarize a plot in a few paragraphs. Now, since this is an extremely notable movie, that means there may be more availability for substantial real-world content on the characters, which is required to show notability. Thus, I'll !vote keep but rename to Characters of Titanic (1997), and delete in a few weeks if no proof or inclusion of real-world content is given. This is how these problems should be handled. AfD injects panic in people; we're better off ascending the chain of options politely and using redirects strategically; their usefulness goes beyond redirecting to locations, because redirects preserve the edit history and (usually) the talkpage. — Deckiller 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era)

Born to Lose, Built to Win (The Reagan Era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL) with no references (fails WP:V). Article has been deleted via prod twice already (link); this time the prod was removed without comment. Request either a protected redirect to Juelz Santana, or salting. Precious Roy 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Town Productions Presents: The Lost Tapes

Chi Town Productions Presents: The Lost Tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtapes that have no non-trivial coverage from reliable, third party sources. This fails WP:N because there is no "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Sources simply having a track listing is far from significant. Unlike notable album articles, these can never have charts, sales, awards, themes, or critical reviews. Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's "too many" to consider at once, I'll PROD each one. I withdraw this nomination. I have no doubt these are not notable though. Spellcast 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that none of these tapes are the subject of non-trivial coverage. At the risk of over-generalising, I examined each tape in Kanye West discography#Mixtapes for notability. I left out I'm Good & Clinton Sparks & Kanye West: Touch the Sky because they are recognised by mainstream publications and even have critical reviews[14][15]. But the ones above can never expand from their current state. Unlike notable albums, you have background info, production, sales, impact, and reviews from music critics. These have none. Spellcast 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know you from a block of wood, and I'm not going to rely on your ability to research a subject when I don't know you. I do, however, know that even editors I am familiar with can miss sources and coverage on a subject, I know I have had trouble myself at times. Therefore, I suggest closing and trying smaller bundles. Or maybe try PROD and then AFD on the remaining articles.. FrozenPurpleCube 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary, I'll nominate each individually (or perhaps 5 at a time). But I have no doubt these won't survive on a case by case basis. See also a mass AfD of Snoop Dogg related tapes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1. Spellcast 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just go with PROD myself, then see what was contested. Might not be anything at the end. And as for the discussion at the time, I don't know that it was wrong, however, I'm concerned about the numbers. There could be something that slips past everyone. FrozenPurpleCube 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness: The Second Chapter

Forgiveness: The Second Chapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short stub on non-notable sequel game. First chapter of game doesn't have a page, neither does the gaming company. Possible speedy for no context. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MCB 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Saba

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

No notability established. Appears to have co-authored a book, perhaps two or tree; one of which ("Homeschooling Companion") may be a serious work. The rest is "based on an interview" with the subject of the author. Lots of claims of fabulous products, games, web sites, "well over 1000 projects", awards, groundbreaking work, future products and books, whatnot; little of which is shown to exist, much less evidence of being notable. No sources allowing for a genuine WP:NPOV, non-spammy, non-WP:COI article to be written. Weregerbil 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive (not even a review). Only Google Books results are her own works. Fails WP:BIO. Created by Timequaker (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account (who, according to article Talk page, "won't be back"). --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a single-purpose account was I got disgusted with the whole wikipedia process - it is illogical when you see something like John Taylor-Gatto - far less noteworthy in the same field - not be questioned, but someone industry folks know to be far more 'noteworthy' being attacked like this. So I got disgusted with the Wikipedia process. If you search "Laura Saba" under google in general or yahoo you will find dozens of reviews, particularly of The McGraw-Hill Homeschooling Companion. I don't understand Dhartung's inability to find those. I asked weregerbil to provide an understanding to a 'newbie' like myself as to how this works and there was no response other than an addition of 'tags' again. I find that to be elitist - it doesn't seem Wikipedia is serious about wanting to produce accurate stories or to encourage outside participation when admins don't respond and instead post new tags. I was simply trying to UNDERSTAND so that future entires to wikipedia would NOT have such issues. Weregerbil only seemed bent on discrediting mine and others' entries - not on helping us understand the process. Sad commentary on the wiki process - I once counted on it. However, I've now an interesting topic for my PhD thesis so I'm grateful to weregerbil for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the most reputed homeschool review groups posted a review at http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art6205.asp again I don't understand how dhartung claims there are no reviews there are dozens and dozens out there and this book has been featured in virtually all homeschooling magazines and mentioned in many other homeschooling books. Perhaps the trouble is that with the nature of homeschooling, as homeschoolers tend to have a 'distrust' of the government and organized approaches, too much of their workings are NOT on the web - including most of the industry oriented magazines of which there are 14 - but only 4 have any online presence. Perhaps admins should need to understand the industry they are attacking before passing judgment? Otherwise it demonstrates a certain ignorance of the standards which they are utilizing to judge, given the standards of judgment fail in the instance off movements and industries that fall outside 'the box'. The qualifications utilzed to attack this entry - a true one - fall short herein. John Taylor Gatto is known to pay to have his work promoted endlessly, so he meets your requirements, though all within this movement know truths. Confusing, this whole Wikipedia approach. I'm not here to argue I could care less whether you keep this article here or not - i'm just perplexed that an admin, when A) asked for clearer understanding, ignores it instead, when wikipedia supposedly prides itself on encouraging participation and B) not caring to examine an issue more closely when they come upon something that doesn't fit inside a little box. For such a groundbreaking technology as wiki is, you would think those involved would stay on top of things rather than locking themselves into a little box. The reason for not wanting to continue 'conversation' or 'coming back' is because I cannot discuss with someone who has already made up their mind, and done so based upon 'standards' that in this case cannot reflect truth. disappointing, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timequaker (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I made a crack on wikifying the article. 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The question here is: Can we find substantial independent coverage about the person in reliable sources? (Not publications by her, and also not publications by organizations she is affiliated with etc.) The article actually lists 23 footnotes. I tried to verify against these sources; but I found none (in those available to me) that would support notability. The most promising (if unavailable to me) seem to be an article in the Guardian and one in the Washington Times; most others seem to be trivial or not independent. Perhaps someone else with access to the newspaper archives could check. But consering that the article otherwise makes many trivial claims in illustrious words (she has a Red Cross Instructor certification! I'm amazed!), I am not inclined to believe without verification that those newspaper articles contain nontrivial coverage about the subject. I have no prejudice towards recreation of an article that reduces to notable, verifiable facts. But this would need a complete rewrite anyway. --B. Wolterding 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM--AmerHisBuff 09:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such that

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

Articles about stylized constructions in mathematical discourse are in general hard to source and of marginal encyclopedic interest; in this case there's arguably no specialized meaning anyway, as the construction can be interpreted correctly in ordinary English. Trovatore 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No specialised meaning, obvious from context, WP:NOT a dictionary. --Taejo|대조 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is to so-called "set-builder" notation, in that a set is defined as "the elements x such that x blah blah blah." But "such that" in this context isn't particularly technical or unique - it's just using two English words to mean what they mean. --Cheeser1 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in this particular case, the previous version that we were commenting on at WT:WPM was totally about the little symbol in set-builder notation which is pronounced 'such that'. --Sopoforic 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but when considering changing an article into a redirect, the current/former content of the article is irrelevant. The only consideration is whether it makes sense to redirect the title in question to the article being proposed. Redirecting such that to set-builder notation is not completely terrible, but on balance I prefer for it to be a redlink, as there's not much sense in linking it (and it's a fairly implausible search term). --Trovatore 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that content is irrelevant when deciding where to redirect to. I was just explaining where the idea of 'perhaps we should redirect to set-builder notation' came from, since it isn't obvious from the current version of the article. --Sopoforic 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There actually is a peculiar way of using this phrase within mathematical jargon, as sometimes first seen when you're in 12th grade learning epsilon-delta definitions, but it's not worth an article. Michael Hardy 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suppose, but do not redirect to set-builder notation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. The article provides useful information about this important mathematical expression and it's usage. I got to the article in the first place, for instance, to learn what symbols are used to represent such that, and learned that both : and | do the trick. I know my vote is – clearly – overshadowed, but it helped me and I really can't see the harm in keeping it. However, seeing as the information is readily available at the Set-builder notation article, a redirect would work even better. » K i G O E | talk 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we have a table of mathematical symbols or some such. I suppose I could live with a redirect there, if the main purpose is to help people find the symbol (though note that this is the symbol for "such that" in only one context; the phrase is used in other mathematical and non-mathematical contexts). The other thing I don't like about it is that it might encourage people to wikilink the phrase, which I think would be pretty silly. --Trovatore 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I blocked Carl's original PROD, but given the subsequent discussion and given the revised content of the article I have come to agree that a redirect to set-builder notation (yes, an unfortunate sophomoric phrase) is ill-advised. Indeed, the content now makes it clear that only the symbol(s), not the phrase, deserved explanation; for, the obvious interpretation as plain English is adequate without mathematical elaboration. In retrospect, I suppose we could have sorted this out during the PROD waiting interval and avoided an AfD; mea culpa (Latin for "my bad"). --KSmrqT 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as requested by author. the wub "?!" 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EasyProjectPlan

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

This article fails to assert notability and lacks any secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The company may or may not be notable but this AfD concerns the product itself. The article appears to describe a software adaption to a well-known and notable product. By itself it appears non-notable. JodyB yak, yak, yak 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please delete my article. --AngellpPezzullo 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please find reliable sources or this article and probably the other one as well will get deleted. I've tried to explain this to you in the deletion review, also please note ALL CAPS AND BOLD is not a compelling argument. Either follow the requirement of verification or let the page be deleted. Secondly there is no way I'm going to download a program from a website of a company I've never heard of without seeing the source code, not happening. I should not have to try the product out, you should be able to find secondary sources and add them to the page. (and the other one as well). This site is an encyclopaedia, not a review site on how I "think" a program is. Again all thats being asked of you is to provide some secondary reliable sources. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I was unable to load the source provided (its been "loading" for the last 7 minutes). Are there any other sources? How about a review? This is the responsibility of the person adding the content, to at least put forth an assertion of notability and source that assertion. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A second note: I have been unable to load the souce after changing my useragent 4 times! —— Eagle101Need help? 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Angell, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other unsourced, non-notable articles exist on Wikipedia is not a reason to keep similar article on other software. If that article is also non-notable, then somebody will eventually get around to putting up for deletion. Throwing a fit and making demands are not going to save this article - showing sources that show that it is notable will. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGamer

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

Fancruft. Pleasehelp 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Hu12 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karacter

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

Completing unfinished nom made by User:MarkinBoston. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Hu12 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa BENOUDIZ

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

Autobiography / spam by non-notable artist. -- RHaworth 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge→Bubba the Love Sponge --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Radio Network

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

This article seems more a collection of random information than anything. It is hard to articulate precisely why this article doesn't seem to belong, but it just doesn't seem like it should be here. (I admit, I am completely unfamiliar with this particular subject, so I cannot determine how notable this really is.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I was trying to put the same material in this new page, but please do not merge with Howard 100 and howard 101 If you do that you will make it look like Bubba is just some hack that has time on howards station, Bubba is his own show and should be shown as. All info is verifiable. seman209

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hu12 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101 greatest songs of rap music ever

101 greatest songs of rap music ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft and unsourced. This is basically a hitlist made by MTV. Wikipedia is not for hitlists. If someone wants to see MTV's list, I'm sure they can find it on the MTV webpage. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer

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

WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Jeff 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew - it's a good job this article isn't dictionary definition then. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seconding Marasmusine's argument, and also noting that the term gamer is widely used in reliable sources, see for example here. This article is just as valid as for example professional golfer, and could easily be expanded to good status. User:Krator (t c) 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely original research and synthesis. While this term may be notable, I think its better off to start from scratch, with references. Corpx 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is not a dictionary. There are few references to support the article which can be further improved. Article is also not an original research since term such as Cyberathlete has several references on its own page. Cocoma 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cocoma and Krator and inasmuch as, pace Corpx, where an article exists about a subject that merits an article (as this subject, I think, does, since it may properly be more than a dictionary definition and since the topic is an appropriate, notable one), we ought not to delete that article unless there is nothing therein that may serve as encyclopedic/be salvagable; there is, IMHO, a bit in the current article that is quite fine in its current form and that may be included in an article that is not marred by any OR—an article's being kept at AfD, to be sure, though, should not (necessarily) be understood as counseling against the subsequent removal or improvement of (even some non-trivial) portion of it. Joe 06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May need cleanup but is certainly a notable term used in reliable sources. Davewild 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix up. Artw 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It's in bad shape and has some ORish stuff in it, but this is how many Wikipedia articles start. Subject is clearly notable and there are plenty of reliable sources on which to base a good article. The CVG people probably ought to have an improvement drive on this article... — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the keep votes above me, although I agree with Corpx that its in dire need of some sourcing and perhaps a rewrite. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Panadero

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

No notability is established (or even asserted) by the article. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadr City Massacre

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

A google search finds no sources for such an event (excluding the World Socialist Website) New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The sad thing is that searching for this title on Google returns so many possible different acts, however searching by date on Wikinews throws up this article Sadr City suicide bomber uses fruit truck to kill 66 on market dayone of its sources has since become defunct but these two are still up at Forbes and San Fransisco Chronicle. Using the details from these two sources one can find the following on the BBC, and on Google, the top result is 1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing.
So the best thing to do is to redirect to this article.KTo288 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Alley

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

No indication that this club is more notable than any other like it New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay fidanza

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

The subject does not appear notable (nor any source is given to support his notability), apart for having worked for several years, as many of us do. Goochelaar 17:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganguro

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

Notability and Verification. I can only find links that are either Wikipedia or totally laden with ads, which make it impossible to verify. Can't find WP:RS links. Has been tagged since Dec. 2006 and no one has found sources., including me. Pharmboy 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This Ganguro stuff is a huge cultural movement amongst teenagers and young adults in Japan, just like Hiphop is in other parts of the world. While it is truethat more sources are needed, googling for "ganguro" brings up a good number of usable pages. There are also articles to be found in the archives of nytimes.com. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was googling found zero sources that met WP:RS, and I have been looking for a while. That is the problem. It might be notable, but I can't find any PROOF that meets policy. Just because it is cool or "obviously notable" doesn't cut it. Pharmboy 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looked into it a little closer. You are right, results found on google are no good, and the 4 results the times gave me (which kind of gave me a false impression) are worthless as well. I guess the subject will become more popular out of asia / related communities somewhen in the future and an article can then be created with all the sourced needed, so i'll go with a weak delete. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be one of those things that needs to be written in the japanese version, then ported to english wikipedia. I believe the trend existed, and hoped someone would perhaps find some reliable sources to justify keeping the article, but excepting you I am just seeing people arguing KEEP for emotional reasons with nothing to back it up. Its a bitch to find foreign language sources that meet WP:RS. It isn't that I want it deleted, but feel it MUST be since no one has been able to find those sources for a long time. Pharmboy 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable. The sockpuppetry and attempts to fool us by signing someone else's username didn't help. - KrakatoaKatie 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetsong Nashville

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

Relatively unknown record label which only appears to have two artists on the books, one of whom is non-notable per WP:MUSIC and has been nominated for a CSD. All supposed links to citations for notability refer to the other represented artist but not to the label itself. So basically the label is non-notable. Article creator (as well as a possibly sock-puppet anonymous user} has repeatedly self-deleted 2 or 3 CSD notices and a recent prod. WebHamster 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Neutral Though hesitating between a neutral/weak delete decision, Moe Bandy looks to have been a notable artist with that label (although for nearly two years only), Also, the Bandy article would had to have additionnal sources which may help the cause of this article. --JForget 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible KEEP. I think that the article is possibly salvagable. A record label with at least one notable artist and another artist (whose notability has yet to be determined) having referenced, reliable independent sources, while not a household name, may be notable. Are there any referenced sources available? BaldDee 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [COMMENT to WebHamster, I think it's a little odd that you nominated both articles for deletion, then pointed to each other's nominations as evidence of the non-notability of the subject of the nom. I'm not questioning your motives, but it gives me pause to wonder... Why not simply state, "I nominated both articles for deletion because they were both non-notable." or something similar. If another editor had nominated one of the articles, your statement would carry slightly more weight as an argument. As is, in nom Y you're saying "See nom X" and in nom X you're saying "See nom Y"] BaldDee 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was the way I chose to word it, you would have chosen your way, vive le difference. WebHamster 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for perspective BaldDee has been shown to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been stalking me and making numerous bad faith AFDs against my articles--WebHamster 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infants (band)

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

Non-notable band. No references given. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threadless

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

Non-notable website/company. Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. All 'references' are from the website itself. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - While I would certainly agree that the article needs better citations than the ones it currently has, and therefore may currently fall afoul of WP:WEB, I strongly disagree that the article fails WP:CORP because it's a notable company that has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources multiple times, which is the primary criterion listed on WP:CORP.
Threadless is not only a notable example of crowdsourcing and as such is mentioned in not only the Wikipedia article on the subject, but also in numerous articles as well as one podcast in BusinessWeek in that or similar contexts (1 2 3 4), as well being either the subject of, or mentioned by articles from the New York Times (1 2 3) , the Chicago Tribune (1 the original page is offline but it was reportedly on the front cover of the CT's magazine), as well as having their founders profiled as part of Chicago Business' "40 under 40" series (1). The company has also been featured aside arguably notable companies such as Muji and Yamaha (as explored in the first linked BusinessWeek article) by an article published in MIT's Sloan Management Review exploring the integration of customers into the design process as way to reduce the risks of new product development (1). --hopkapi 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The references cited mention Threadless as an example. This is not sufficient for WP:CORP, which requires that the company be the subject of the source (this is why the Google Test is no good for demonstrating notability - Google does not distinguish between examples and subjects, yet we must in WP). A source that has crowdsourcing as its subject can be used to demonstrate the notability of crowdsourcing, not of every 25-employee private company mentioned in the the source. UnitedStatesian 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're misinterpreting "subject" in WP:CORP. The coverage must be non-trivial, but by no means must the subject of the article be the only focus of the coverage. Second, both sources I cited, in fact, are about the company itself. So, either way, I think you're wrong on this one. -Chunky Rice 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading University Students' Union

Reading University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. I've previously nominated this for speedy, and then it went into Prod - that was a mistake on my part, it should have had a discussion. So here it is. TheIslander 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article seems to fail WP:ORG. While references have recently been provided, most of them originate from the Union's website, and the remaining ones don't provide proof of notability. --Bfigura (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptorium Fonts

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

no references supporting company notabilty provided or found NeilN 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Keep, article has improved significantly --NeilN 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why this was nominated for deletion much less Speedy Delete. I'd class the delete request as attempted vandalism. -- Lumpy

Comment - Care to explain your reasoning? --NeilN 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the article discussion, I don't see why this would have been flagged for deletion. Hell, it was flagged while I was still working on the second paragraph. I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism, but it's a pretty cut and dried case. This seems like a perfectly reasonable listing for a company with a substantial market presence in an industry where Wikipedia already has listings for a lot of other companies. What's the big deal? - Al --Thalkyudes 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." --NeilN 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only very rarely are articles written about fonts and even rarer are those written about a specific foundry or a specific font. Most of them are on the level of a one-line usenet post saying "X font is great." I did include links to the source for all info in the entry, which was drawn from the page on Scriptorium Fonts on MyFonts and from the company website. I've found some more material, but I'm not really sure what's worth adding. I'd like to get this sorted out, because I could improve other entries in this category pretty easily. For example, the entry for Emigre looks like they wrote it themselves, and they're one of the few foundries which really has been written about a lot so there's more material out there that's well substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've added to the links a review, an article about Scriptorium from Whole Earth Magazine and a couple of other decent sources. I suppose this would have been easier if I'd started with a more controversial foundry. What more is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP-7 and this article does not qualify for speedy delete under those criteria, so could we at least get the speedy delete removed for now as we work on resolving the normal delete process? - Al --Thalkyudes 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. I still feel that it qualifies for speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Irrespective of my opinion, my opinion is just as valid as any other editors here, it stays. Please take a look at AfD Wikietiquette, and familiarise yourself with how an AfD works. Also, bear in mind that though I expressed the opinion 'Speedy Delete', it still requires the majority to agree with me for it to happen. TheIslander 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I get a vote too, right? Of all the articles I've written this is the only one that's ever been flagged for deletion. I'm doing everything I can to make it a model listing, so bear with me - Al --Thalkyudes 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Independent sources are not optional. Eluchil404 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore GNU Group

Singapore GNU Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Organization lack of nobility. Activites are not notable and no verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found (e.g. The Straits Times) as of WP:CORP. All information so far are linked directly from Singapore GNU's website. Cocoma 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the group is already acknowledged by the GNU Project while the Straits Times is irrelevant here as this is an international organization. I would nominate this page as a stub though.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.44.29 (talk) 14:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

As stated under WP:CORP, Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article. When referencing this to Singapore GNU, it is only started in year 2006 (longetivity) and has less than 10 members (size of membership). Hence, it is not notable for an article. Cocoma 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Deletion As one of the many members in GNU, I am surprised to see a proposed deletion. Do note that it is the board size that is less than 10, not the movement in Singapore. A quick check with Wikipedia reveals that most GNU or Linux groups are of this form. See the following as examples in Wikipedia: Silicon Valley Linux User Group, Peruvian Linux User Group, Linux Users' Group of Davis, Hellenic Linux User Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesooqing (talk • contribs) 23:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per Cocoma. This organisation appears to be worthy, but small membership, and limited scope suggest notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non Deletion This group was gathered barely a year ago but I noticed they had carried out some unusual activities such as conducting a public protest (Any public protest in Singapore is illegal). As far as I can tell from my brief experience of living in Singapore, this group is one of the only two local organizations that endorses civil disobedience (the other being the Singapore Democratic Party). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.122.154 (talk) 12:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Could also be a WP:COI spam article. Vegaswikian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • Non Deletion Vote for notability. The GNU has published white papers for the government and is the foreshadow of what is to come: the Free Software Foundation Asia. What I dislike is the article's lack of an expert to simplify the various jargons used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.47.200 (talk) 13:39, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable group. Keb25 08:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sussex Students' Union

University of Sussex Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. TheIslander 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MCB 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAT

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

Fails WP:CORP, can not find any non-trivial sources to establish notability in either English or Russian languages. Russavia 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal slang

Heavy metal slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary page, not a page for an encyclopedia, merely a page of heavy metal derogatory terms. Dan 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnaminson Mall

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

Tagged for cleanup and context for months with no improvement. Non-notable mall that was torn down a few years ago, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - patented processes and items should have sources, and this one has no third-party verifiable sources to substantiate the claims made here. KrakatoaKatie 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential assembly

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

I was reluctant to PROD this, as it is a "patented process", and may require context provided by an expert. I'm not sure under which notability guideline this falls. Weak delete, pending opinions of scientific minds. Xoloz 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's actually patented, then there's no excuse for not having a source. Mandsford 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like notability is being established via synthesis. Notice that the only source for the subject of the article comes from the company that allegedly holds the patent. Everything else is about exponential growth (which is notable on its own.) Thus, they are trying to use the notability of exp growth to slip the article's subject through. I may even nominate via speedy delete as this could be some sneaky advertisement. Yet, it is better to be careful and see what others have to say.Brusegadi 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (no salt, no redirect) as an editor somewhat well-read in the area (though no to the point of expertise). To the best of my knowledge, "exponential assembly" is not recognized as a notable term of art by any textbook or credible academic source. The Drexler statement is accurate, but doesn't support the inclusion of this article since Drexler used different terminology to describe similar concepts. Weak delete as a protologism which is not widely used by the nanotech community. — xDanielx T/C 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but disambiguate. Notability and verifiability as a term is established by peer reviewed scientific journals[27] BUT it appears the term "exponential assembly" also is also used in other scientific contexts (nuclear fuels and biology amongst others). The article could be expanded to cover the range of uses of the term (including this one) beyond a mere dictionary definition.Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your observation on the different uses of the term, but I couldn't find any unaffiliated academic articles which treat it as a term of art the way Zyvex does. The first, second, and fourth are authored by Zyvex affiliates, while the third, fifth, and sixth use "exponential assembly" generally for other purposes and not as a term of art. I haven't investigated past that - if you found something I didn't please let me know. — xDanielx T/C 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCAU Extended Timeline Guide

DCAU Extended Timeline Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list Rhindle The Red 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just a collection of episode lists. A gx7 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime time cartoon

Prime time cartoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded as OR, which it is in large part, as its unifying theme is weak. However, it does have some sourcing, and there may be useful information in here to merge somewhere... though I don't know where. I definitely think more eyes will be helpful here. Anyway, delete as inappropriate article topic. Xoloz 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is weak, but concept is at least valid enough that it can be covered in some form. Let's consider [28] for example. Or [29]. Perhaps you'd like a New York Times article? [30] is right there. Maybe [31] for a world-wide perspective. I'd say this is a topic which can make for a decent article, if not in the state it should be. I suppose you could do something like soap opera but that's really just a question of style. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Serious POV issues, and the entire article is full of OR, bias and 1000 other problems, including the title. The CONCEPT of an article about prime time cartoons, however, I think is a valid idea as long as it is based on facts and not opinions about the shows. The article here needs an insane amount of work, but that is a reason to fix it, not delete it. Pharmboy 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some cleanup, but actually a good concept about the changing form of animation meant to be watched in Prime Time, from "The Flintstones" to "Family Guy". Authors understand the idea of sourcing, which is a nice surprise in a cartoon article. Mandsford 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a category. This is a list of cartoons that were aired during prime time hours. All important content is already in the individuals and I fail to see why we need a summary of this Corpx 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because other people believe this subject is important enough to write about. It's really not inherently a list (though as lists go, it's hardly any more objectionable than any other list of television shows like that of game shows, or soap operas, or broadcast by ABC. There's a clear criteria. Be on in primetime and be a cartoon. Frankly, I think there should be such a list, because a category can't include dates, air times or networks. Well, not all in one page anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but get out the chainsaw and prune it. As Pharmboy and others touched upon, the concept of prime-time animation is probably worthy of an article, and I'm sure it can be sourced. It's really little more than an indiscriminate list right now, though. I see potential. --UsaSatsui 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenfir

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

Private school with no claim of notability in article. "Controversy" is not sourced, and gsearch does not confirm allegations. Possible attack page by student. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Stories Uncovered

California Stories Uncovered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Group has not even released an EP. Nv8200p talk 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as non-notable.

Rick Crawford

Article is about a politican who's run twice for the United States House of Representatives, but lost both times. Official website is down, and other notability is not asserted. Delete. D-Day 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. There have been many people who've run for Congress on a major party ticket and lost. Should we include every major political party also-ran on here? --D-Day 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It wouldn't be a high priority, and I don't think we need a Wikiproject to make sure they're all covered, but when an editor actually creates an article about such a person, it should remain (or at least shouldn't be deleted on grounds of notability). JamesMLane t c 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of this was Eric Dickerson (politician), that was once an article, and is now just a redirect to Indiana's 7th congressional district election, 2006. --rogerd 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best way to go. I really don't think just running for Congress itself is notable. Anybody can, including a sewer drain digger. Would we really need an article about him on Wikipedia if he didn't win? Absolutely not. --D-Day 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see no fulfillment of notability standards: he's not held a high enough office, and the article does not provide sources to demonstrate his notability otherwise. Nyttend 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E. KrakatoaKatie 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azia Kim

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

Insufficiently notable. (She's basically fallen off the radar.)[33] Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by me, A7- no assertion of notability whatsoever. J Milburn 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Bees

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

Non-notable band. Page doesn't even assert notability. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. There is obviously some notability here, but the article desperately needs expansion to fulfil this. ELIMINATORJR 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairmyres Hospital

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

Non-notable hospital. It claims George Orwell wrote 1984 while there, but the hospital opened in 2001. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hairmyres Hospital was built Post WW2 (or thereabouts) but was a cluster of scattered buildings (some still existing) but was replaced in 2001 with the new build. A better page for Hairmyres Hospital on Wikipedia would be best. 3mgrantEK 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • TB sanatorium opened in 1919 with 250 beds on site of 1904 "reformatory for inebriates"; by 1941 there were 1,090 bed in E.M.S. hospital.(source in my earlier post, below) Orwell's publisher in US arranged a supply of Streptomycin, making him the first patient to receive it in Scotland. Having made your draft page (see Talk), you should put it on the main page. Finavon 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Political Investment Caucus

LGBT Political Investment Caucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG which states "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found" No reliable sources were found for this group. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajah Motors

Rajah Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Clearly fails not notable company WP:CORP and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Strage

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

Fails the criteria for creative professionals as defined by WP:BIO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Chambers

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

Delete - fails WP:BIO as Chambers has not had significant roles in productions. His appearance on Who Wants to Be a Superhero? is no different than the appearances of untold dozens of other reality show contestants who've not been found notable enough for articles. This was nominated previously and kept largely on the basis of speculation about his rumored appearances in the comic book and film that were awarded as prizes for winning the show. The comic has been published and the film has aired with nary a mention of Chambers or his Iron/Dark Enforcer character. Discounting the crystal balling of the keepers there's no notability here. Otto4711 14:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimbudeven

Chimbudeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Possible WP:COI only edit of creator and totally unreferenced since July 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four-letter word

Four-letter word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)

Totally unreferenced since July 2006 The article is unencyclopaedic.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas albums

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

Unnecessary list: a category about such albums already exists Tomj 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy

AfDs for this article:
List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - nominated previously as part of an ill-fated mass nomination, which was split apart and closed no consensus. This is a directory of loosely associated topics, seeking to capture every character of a particular occupation regardless of the lack of any relationship between them. A similar more general police detectives list was deleted and this one is no better. Otto4711 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE & MERGE - While the list may be interesting, even noteworthy, it's probably more appropriate as a "Police officers in popular culture" section in the Police article. --BaldDee 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement window size

Acknowledgement window size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Totally unreferenced and orphaned .The article is not clear and not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to be aprt of a series of imported definitions for the 802.11 standard. --Dhartung | Talk 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Heathcote

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

Non-notable person; the person's acheivements seem to be more trivial than anything, and hardly warrents his own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fath Vehicle Industries

Fath Vehicle Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) clearly fails WP:CORP not notable and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Auto

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

Clearly fails not notable company WP:CORP and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Motors

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

Fails WP:CORP,not notable company orphaned since since August 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unfortunately, as a non-Western company, easily available sources may not be adequate to the task of building an article on this company. However, as a 30 year old manufacturer of automobiles, I'd at least like to give somebody a chance to try. FrozenPurpleCube 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've looked for other information on the internet, without much luck; even the URL for a company website seems to be of no help. Any automobile manufacturer is of interest, but as with Shanti Motors I don't find anything. Mandsford 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does this event exist? A google hit comes up with relatively nothing. Indian companies are advanced enough to have good representation on the web. See Tata and Maruti for example Corpx 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I expect all companies, even today, to necessarily have a good web presence. I'd prefer somebody look up a source that actually goes out seeking information. Anybody know of any publications on the Indian Automobile industry? FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a vehicle manufacturer we're talking about - shouldn't they be bound to have a web presence ? Here are some Indian car magazines, but I came up empty there Corpx 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never assume what anybody will do, but while finding presence of the web may be useful, non-presence is not always proof. It might be we just don't know the right places to look. This is especially important in this case, where the company has possibly changed names several times. FrozenPurpleCube 16:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discounting SPA. Hoaxes do not belong on wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emrus O'Quinn

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

This article cannot be verified. Neither the subject nor the book cited nor the author of said book provided any g-hits or evidence of existence. Contains some really incredible claims. Possible WP:HOAX. Evb-wiki 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You've missed out on a few things here, but good job on including that he was born in Hibernia- that's Ireland, Merkinsmum, explaining why his name is 'O'Quinn'- thats whats most important i think. Firstly, you haven't named any of his Mercenary band- such as Roscus and my personal favourite Tembos (the drunken buffoon)- and secondly, there were some debates as to whether it was actually China that he landed in. I can see you prefer the Aussie version though. Reddogian 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — Reddogian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Only 3 Ghits, all on Wikpedia [40] , and two are related to it's deletion. Almost certainly a hoax. Edward321 05:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Skee

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

Not notable enough to have his own article, should be deleted and redirected to The Black Wall Street article just like what happened to the Nu Jerzey Devil article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 11:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His own website would of course be self-promotional and not considered a reliable 3rd party source, other than for personal facts. As above, I would like to see more sources added to the article because I'm sure they're out there. I'll go ahead and add the one I found. While I don't believe mixtapes constitute notability within the WP:Music criteria, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe Keep is in order here because he is a well-known DJ. ♫ Cricket02 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Shakespeare

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

The subject is not notable enough. Stuarta 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Google 'Stephan Shakespeare' before nominating the article. You'll find 12,300 hits, including articles in the Guardian, both about him ([42], [43], etc) and written by him ([44], [45], etc). He's the founder of the UK's laregst polling company, the founder of the UK's first internet TV station, a major stakeholder in and regular contributor to the UK's most popular blog, and a former Conservative PPC. As a result of all of the above, he's one of the best-known party-political figures outside elected office in this country. How about you explain how he's not notable. Bastin 11:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You overstate your case. He is not "one of the best-known party-political figures outside elected office in this country". He is not, for example, remotely as well known as Alistair Campbell. You cite newspaper articles about him that comprise a mocking piece on his role as "rosy-cheeked official friend" of Jeffrey Archer during the perjury scandal, and a business piece on YouGov — not significant coverage of Shakespeare himself. I do not regard involvement with an "internet TV station" or being a "stakeholder" in a political blog to be persuasive either. There are numerous people involved in such minor league media operations, just as there are founders of market research companies. These people don't have Wikipedia pages.
His newspaper political commentary is slightly more persuasive. Indeed, I'm prepared to be swayed on those grounds alone, because it might be that because of it he has some name recognition, or that he has made a major impression in that arena. What you have presented so far is not extensive, however. Is he more notable than other newspaper writers whose pages have been deleted on grounds of non-notability?
On a separate note, I would say that the page as it stands reads in parts like advertising for YouGov. I shall take this matter up if the page stays.
More broadly, I would point out that the evidential burden is on you, pace your final sentence. You need to provide the sources showing his notability, and the article should reflect these sources. So far this isn't the case.
Stuarta 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another founder of YouGov is Nadhim Zahawi. He does not have a Wikipedia page. Nor, as far as I know, do the founders of MORI, ICM or Populus (although feel free to correct me on that). Are you suggesting founders of companies generally should be included, or just founders of polling companies? If so, why?
Shakespeare is a failed, former candidate for parliament, of which there is a long list not deemed significant enough for encyclopedic coverage. The Wikipedia notability guidelines for politicians state that inclusion is warranted for "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Shakespeare falls short of that. He clearly does not merit inclusion on grounds of political signifiance deriving from his unsuccessful candidacy.
Stuarta 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the founder of MORI, Sir Robert Worcester, does indeed have an article.
The notability criterion that you cite is a sufficient criterion. That is, if it is met - if one is a member of a national legislature, etc - one is notable by default. In this case, I would argue that he would not be notable by that criterion, but a modicum of sense would suggest that the criteria are cumulative. Whether or not he is notable as a politician is open to debate (he was covered by the national media for his role in the Norris mayoral campaign, remember). However, whatever your opinion on that, he must be considered notable because independent sources cover a range of his activities that, put together, make him more notable than your average former backbench MP, even though the latter qualifies automatically so long as he has independent sources published about him. Bastin 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If you wish to create articles about other company founders, you are free to do so. Let the community judge each article on its merits. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is no more relevant than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage [Talk] 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've been persuaded. I disagree that the article "easily" meets WP:N; it still seems a borderline case to me. He is not a prominent businessman, politician or political commentator. I disagree also that precedents elsewhere on Wikipedia are irrelevant: articles cannot be judged in a vacuum. That said, while none of Shakespeare's activities appears sufficient alone to warrant inclusion, I've been persuaded that cumulatively they do add up to notability.
As noted, the article does need cleaning up. It focuses too much on YouGov and its apparent merits, and not enough on Shakespeare's abortive political career and involvement with Archer. If these things are major reasons for the article's inclusion then they surely deserve more than a sentence each. Further, I cannot agree that its sources are adequate, given that they comprise the websites of two companies with which Shakespeare is involved. There is nothing on his political articles, or the articles about him/his company.
Stuarta 11:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respire (Girls Aloud Song)

Respire (Girls Aloud Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article also fails WP:MUSIC - no sources desribing the release of this single, or even, the name. I could not find a reliable source to support this article, which means that this article also fails WP:NOTABILITY — *Hippi ippi 10:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please sign your comments. Obviously you do not know WP's policies - I have mentioned the ones that Respire (Girls Aloud Song) violates above, which means that this article should rightfully be deleted. Besides, it's not hard to make a new article. — *Hippi ippi 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But if there is alreadyone, it sort of wastes time and kb?Peterwill 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I change my mind Peterwill 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song "respire" isn't even on the new album.Peterwill 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and how do you know that for sure? Oh, whatever. — *Hippi ippi 12:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecovangelism

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

Non-notable. Very few google hits and no academic sources. The article does not quote any refs. It will not not approp to redir to Green Christianity -- Alan Liefting talk 09:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a little used neologism. -- Alan Liefting talk 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da Sham

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

Article was originally created for a non-existent Heesham Brook (not found in GNIS search or on Google) and has been turned into a complete nonsense article. Alansohn 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (with no prejudice against revisiting topic later). CitiCat ♫ 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Robin Hood

Cultural depictions of Robin Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

triviabag excuse for a list. Indiscriminate collection of information. Robin Hood in popular culture already nominated. Bulldog123 08:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Not merging because it seems these mentions were originally cast off for being too trivial. Cool Hand Luke 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chico in Popular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well, I'm not even sure what this list is really about, which should spell out the problem enough. I think it's about the location. Seems like another WP:NOT#IINFO "in popular culture" list, that provides no substance. Bulldog123 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As usual, unsourced, non-notable listcruft. -- Kicking222 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I guess we could take the view that "in popular culture" isn't substantial in itself. However that is obviously not the prevailing position at Wikipedia. I don't know if you have considered the word "indiscriminant," very carefully. Every single item on this start level page connects the city of Chico to an event of national notability. I would call that a significant loss of supporting material for the main article (and I think it is important to realize that it is a page that supports another page). Rather than proposing to delete things so that they get lost forever, perhaps you could back off a bit and take a more incrementalist approach? Also, when people say that they "don't know what it's about;" that isn't a very good position from which to propose a deletion. I'll never understand wholesale deletion of perfectly good information. Worried about disk space? I'm pretty sure it will be okay! Gregbard 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Gregbard is the creator of this list. Crazysuit 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think "Every single item on this start level page connects the city of Chico to an event of national notability" is rather overstating the case. The very first item in the list is, after all, "Herb Caen called Chico the city where you get Velveeta in the gourmet cheese section." And I wouldn't call any of the entries under "Television" an event of national notability. The use of Chico as a location for films (as well as Mr. Caen's quip) can be covered in the city's article, but this article fails WP:NOT#DIR #1. Deor 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - directory of unassociated topics. Otto4711 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO. A clear collection of trivias. --Hirohisat Kiwi 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Chico, California Even less likely than Fresno as an item of pop culture, only civic pride can explain the existence of this article. Honestly, I never would have heard of it if it hadn't been for the one-liner by Bob Dole. To his credit, "E.D." is not referred to as "Chico" although both are associated with Dole and something falling. Mandsford 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Indiscriminate list of trivial references. Is there a worse IPC list on Wikipedia? Crazysuit 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per loosely associated items. We do not need a list of every time a town/city is mentioned in fiction Corpx 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about the movies filmed there can be merged back into Chico, California -- at least the more notable films that spent a significant amount of filming in Chico. (Just a background shot of the mountains doesn't count.) None of the rest of the article is all that significant, so delete the remainder. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 12:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a bunch of trivia mentions, the fact that a small town got mentioned a few times doesn't mean a whole page should be made. Dannycali 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is indeed indiscriminate--a list of filming locations, 2 references to a college, a trivial political campaign event, 2 incidental uses of the town, and a reality show contestant who came from there. This is a muddle. If all the proposed deletions had been like this, there wouldn't be much argument. DGG (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The main Chico, California article has a trivia section. Why not include the information in this article in that section? N Yo FACE 03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English people with Caribbean origins

List of English people with Caribbean origins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Renominated separately per suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. Bulldog123 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as unsourced article, nn band. - KrakatoaKatie 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery (band)

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

Non-notable band, no independent releases, no notable artists. WP:BAND. Giggy\Talk 07:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. AR Argon 09:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks mention by independent reliable sources (at least on the internet), no proof that they have released any charted hits or have their music played by the mass media. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - but with the caveat that if evidence of commercial availability of some of their releases, or notable references by reliable independent sources are found I'll change my vote to KEEP. --BaldDee 15:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not provide evidence that the band meets the WP:BAND criteria. Like BaldDee, I feel the article is salvageable if reliable sources are located. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are a couple of links where you can buy an album of theirs and read about why they say they haven't signed with a major label. To be a punk band can make it more difficult to meet WP's standards of notability. [47] [48] Nanabozho 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's another source for buying one of their records. This record is released on Profane Existence which should count as an independent release. As far as PE goes, they've been releasing records since 1989 so they're definetly a serious independent record label. [49] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybrower (talk • contribs) 20:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Selling their CDs does not meet any part of WP:BAND, unless you can show that their CDs were at a significant position on charts. I have at least one family member that has contributed significantly to a creative work you can find on Amazon, that doesn't make her notable --lucid 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, but combined with the other links, it does shows that the band "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works".Raybrower 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My mistake, I thought record releases on independent labels would count as published works but I guess that falls under #5 instead. I'd say they fulfil that criteria, there's one release on Profane Existence [50] and one on C.A.H Records [51]. Both labels have released a substantial number of records. Besides various distros, it is quite hard to find sources on the internet for this band. Probably due to the fact that they're part of a scene that traditionally has steered away from a mainstream lifestyle, including excessive use of the internet. If someone has access to traditional zines such as Slug & Lettuce, I'm sure you can find reviews as well as interviews with the band. Here are two reviews of their records though. [52] [53]Raybrower 14:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes Against Humanity Records

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

Non-notable recording company. Only two artists with articles - both currently at AfD. Giggy\Talk 07:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilit

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

Non notable song - the band (Hilera) don't have an article, no reason why this song should. Giggy\Talk 07:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the primary notabilty of this song appears to have been because it has been used as a theme song on a rebroadcast of a South Korean Soap. A song can become notable for where and how its used independent of the performer, e.g. as here when used as a theme song or an advert etc. I guess this song is in a similar position to "I'll be there for you" and "on the inside" from Friends and Prisoner songs million recognise and know, but most wouldn't be able to name the performer of.KTo288 09:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, a blatant copyvio of the song lyrics. PC78 02:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly closing and redirecting to Big Two. This article describes a well-known game that goes by many names; presumably the authors heard it was called "High 2", and that's good enough reason for me to keep a redirect. I think this redirect is benign, but if any editors feel that it should be deleted, please contact me on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High 2

High 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of being a notable game. Sourced from a blog. WP:MADEUP. Deprodded. Weregerbil 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Oktoberfest celebrations. WjBscribe 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oktoberfest in Hong Kong

Oktoberfest in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Oktoberfest in Hong Kong article does not establish notability. While the general assumption is that the Oktoberfest festival in Germany is notable, an event with the same theme in Hong Kong does not confer notability. Currently, the Hong Kong article is mainly about an annual local celebration put on by a local hotel. Luke! 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion.

Oktoberfest Hannover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The reason being is that both of these articles are about local Oktoberfest celebrations that are based off the original festival in Germany. As many AfD's have shown, local chapters/organizations/clubs/festivals/etc. may not be notable just because their parent organizations/themes are. The notability is not conferred or transferred. Luke! 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesrine

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

Fails WP:BAND. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carter & Burgess

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

The page reads like a corporate website. A web search finds a few newspapers articles on the company, but all are Person X hired by Carter/Burgess. This page needs alot of work if the company is notable. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haim Zut

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

I changed the Prod to AFD because personally I think he is notable but am pretty sure that it is debateable. I say Keep but for reference please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haim Gidon (2nd nomination). One other thing is that I thought for a moment both these people were the same - I think they are different.Peter Rehse 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Klein (politician)

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

Reads like a hoax. This person gave two soundbites in an interview on the news, many people have given more. Some of the sources aren't sources at all New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Jaclyn Victor. JoshuaZ 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wajah

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

No references given. Its been tagged as potentially non-notable for 3 months. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't even a good start to a stub of an article. There is no assertion of notability. There are no sources given. One or two people contributed to this article in October and November 2005. There is no one around who knows enough about this topic or cares enough to do the work to demonstrate that it might be notable or even to explain the topic to readers who have never heard of this topic. If it is truly notable someone will re-create the article someday in the future with appropriate sources and clear information. But we can't keep this article on Wikipedia now. And I'll bet a shiny, shiny nickel that no one will notice when this article is deleted. OfficeGirl 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Jaclyn Victor. Reaching #1 in Malaysia is a claim of notability. However, I can't find any WP:RSfor that, and there doesn't seem to be a lot on the song that's differentiable in English (Wajah means "The Look"). As a result it is likely the article will never expand beyond permanent stub. Per the Music guidelines, that means it doesn't qualify for it's own article. Horrorshowj 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable song. Keb25 12:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic film (Monty Python skit)

Erotic film (Monty Python skit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale:

"fails WP:PLOT as a plot description of a sketch with no real-world notability"

Maybe so, but I doubt that this AfD won't turn up Monty Python fans willing to expand the article and deletion is certainly not entirely uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Some MP skits are obviously notable, but I'm not sure about this one. Waiting to see what the inclusionists come up with source-wise before I swing one way or another. spazure (contribs) (review) 07:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - What Spazure said. Hopefully some MP fans will offer to fix it. WP:HEY. Giggy\Talk 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability must be attained through significant coverage from independent sources, which this article lacks currently Corpx 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the one who placed the prod. The article clearly fails WP:PLOT and it also fails WP:N. Monty Python is notable but its notability is not inherited by every three minute segment of every episode of every show. This sketch has no independent notability. Otto4711 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Python is notable, but this particular sketch is not, due to the lack of any significant coverage by reliable sources. -- The Anome 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've voted to delete all the other articles, but this is actually notable for its commentary on film metaphors for sexual intercourse. I don't know if a Wikipedia article exists on those approved themes-- the train going in the tunnel, the cigarette dropping into the coffee cup, etc., but this one ranked with Carlin's "seven dirty words" skit, back in the day. Mandsford 20:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are sources out there which demonstrate some level of external coverage. I can't find any myself, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong here. Following on from what Mandsford has said, the sketch would only be notable for this commentary if there is in fact anything out there saying as much. Carlin's routine has, I'm sure without looking into it, attracted a considerable amount of coverage, which this one is currently lacking. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft and some listcruft. Dannycali 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Gottfried Swenson

Fred Gottfried Swenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references found to show this person is more notable than any other immigrant who came to the US via Ellis Island New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Four Google hits: RIP Fred.MarkBul 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure Fred was a good guy and a good farmer, but there's no evidence that he meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, if you look on the talk page of the article's creator (TRBUFF), you will see that he was notified of this AfD and responded thusly at 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC): "As the creator of the article, I give permission for the article to be deleted." He may not have understood that his permission was not at issue in an AfD, but it shows us that there's not a big push to find any information that would save this article. 'Nuff said. OfficeGirl 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, could almost have been a speedy.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky-Tec

Sky-Tec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some assertion of notability, but no reliable sources listed (or found via google) New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as dic def. Cool Hand Luke 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badhai

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

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Consensus to keep. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel children

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

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see it is being expanded even as I wrote the above. Advice to improvers: don't use a citation as a press-release-style name-check e.g. "mentioned in Newsweek". That's fine for an AFD but in an article it's more important to go to the next step and say what Newsweek (or whomever) said about the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a quote from the Newsweek piece. Nick mallory 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dorcel

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

Not notable, no references, fails WP:PORNBIO Hornet35 06:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ithikasam

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

Movie is only spectulation and article is written like an advertisment. Oysterguitarist 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Carioca 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Adofo

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

I couldn't find anything on Francis Adofo that would make him notable. There is certainly nothing that would make him qualify under WP:BIO. The article is also unsourced and a google search shows nothing that would work as a reliable source. DesertAngel 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Speedily kept as bad faith nom by now indef-blocked user. Georgewilliamherbert 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Ferox

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

It is not a notable band; it could probably even be eligible for "speedy deletion" per {{db-band}} ElminsterAumar 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination of an article I've created, in retribution for my recent work. That aside:
    • Metal.de and gothic-online.de reviews constitute substantial coverage in multiple independent sources (WP:MUSIC 1)
    • They have toured Germany (WP:MUSIC 4)
    • They have published multiple albums on a large German label (WP:MUSIC 5)
    • The German Wikipedia has a nice, longstanding article on them: de:Cultus Ferox.
  • Hope that's clear. All this has been accomplished despite the enormous lack of English sources for a German band. --Eyrian 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eyrian's findings. I'm concerned about how much coverage I can find, but considering it's an international artist this isn't surprising. However, it definitely passes WP:MUSIC 4 and 5. Germany is not a small country by any means - it's easily one of the largest in Europe - and heck, country size isn't even part of the criteria of WP:MUSIC #4; just that the country has sovereignty, which Germany certainly does. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllynJ and ElminsterAumar spazure (contribs) (review) 07:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator has been indefinitely blocked for harassing me. --Eyrian 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep some/split some/merge some into List of characters in Ben 10 and other articles if appropriate. I'll put the {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} notices on that page and the Omnitrix page and leave the rest to you long-winded lunatics steadfast editors. :-) KrakatoaKatie 10:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitrix

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

After looking through this article, it appears as though it is in severe breach of WP:FICTION, as it contains no real world analysis, no outside sources aside from the episodes, and is instead a giant list of fictional characters on the fictional cartoon show Ben 10. If there is a Ben 10 wiki, I recommend it be transferred there, but until then, I nominate for deletion based on WP:FORUM (as the talk page has degenerated into three pages of forum style chat), WP:FICTION, and WP:NOTABILITY. Fancruft and Listcruft would come into effect here as well. Ravenmasterq 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also it's original research, since every reference is to an episode. A Ben10 wiki would be best. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there IS a Ben 10 wikia. It's pretty small though, as it only has 33 articles at last check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.125.183 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed that one, I guess, among all the others. Good call.Ravenmasterq 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, references to easily observed material in an episode of a television show or other work isn't original research. Why? Because there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X. FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with your observation on OR FrozenPurpleCube; simply because every refernce is to an episode doesn't place the page under the original research umbrella since the material comes from a third party, a view who watched the show but wasn't involved in its creation or production. You have captured the essence of that perfectly, "there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X." TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources. Transwiki would also be appropriate if a wiki is found Corpx 07:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; It's nothing more than a typical List of Characters with a bit of information about the device itself. Lists of characters are commonplace and rarely have real-world analysis, yet are still accepted. By the way, some references come from non-episode sources, namely information given by [www.ben10toys.net Ben 10's toymakers] and a bit from [www.bandai.com/Ben10 interviews with the show's writers].
I think that the real reason behind this AFD is that the article's content does not particularly match its title. While the titular object may not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the content itself is acceptable. If it makes it any better, it could be renamed "List of Omnitrix characters" or something of the sort. You Can't See Me! 08:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, but the first is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to inform the people on the talk page that Wikipedia is not a forum and suggest they try elsewhere. If they refuse to move, then maybe the page can be protected, but deleting the main article? That's not a valid deletion reason when the subject of the article can be considered quite valid. As for that, the Omnitrix is clearly a primary part of the show (note how the first movie was titled) as such describing it is important to adequately covering the show. It can be adequately referenced with the episodes, but if you really need third-party sources try [54] and [55]. Heck, see the bottom of this page [56]. I wonder why somebody's asking for further exploration of that whole issue...could it be *important* to the series? Maybe. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, it is central to the entire show. That's not to say some things could be reworked. And any talk page can degenerate into a forum. That's not a vaild reason. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 0

Would you mind not attacking people's positions, but rather discussing them? Seriously, this is a significant part of the series, such that it is essential to cover it in order to be comprehensive. The extent of the coverage may be debated, but it is more than zero. You can dismiss that as WP:ILIKEIT if you want, but that doesn't make you correct. I see it as something we need to cover if we're going to have an article on this show. Which I assume isn't in question? FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you read the requirements for WP:FICTION you wil understand why the article needs to be deleted. Everything the Hammer said also applies, but start with WP:FICTION, and then you can see where we're coming from.Ravenmasterq 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't understand why this article needs to be deleted. It's neither a copyright violation, a hoax, or anything that's unmaintainable. It's not vandalism or any other kind of problem. This is a specific subject, and is not really different from any of the other articles on Wikipedia. So I'd say there's no *need* for deletion here. It's a valid subject to cover, as it's a significant part of a television show that merits coverage. In effect, it's the basic plot device of the show. (this is quite clearly stated The most you might convince me of is that it should be merged with the show's main article, but wait, this is actually a fairly complex subject so...it's appropriate to spin it off. Maybe merge with a list of characters articles if you want. But delete? No, that's not the right way to deal with it. I'm afraid you're the one who is so focused on a guideline that you can't see where I'm coming from, which is the position that the page you're reading is misguided. You may think you're improving Wikipedia. I think you're obsessing on details and rules, but not seeing the bigger picture. Perhaps it's WP:FICTION that's broken and that needs to be deleted. Or at least, modified to recognize that it doesn't cover everything. Oh wait, it already says that at the top. Sorry, but I'm afraid Common sense in this case will trump your objection. At least for me. Care to convince me why this subject should not be covered on Wikipedia without relying on a guideline? FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need any guideline to know this isn't encyclopedic and belongs on a fan site, but that's how things work around here. Guidelines allow us to have nice, logical discussions with anarchy. But common sense tells me that we don't need 58 kilobytes of information on a fictional device from a cartoon series with no connection to the outside world. I would suggest moving the article here: http://ben10.wikia.com/wiki/Ben_10_Planet That makes sense to me.21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Ravenmasterq 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't need any guidelines to know this is encyclopedic, and belongs on Wikipedia, at least in some form. Guidelines are not what allow us to have nice, logical discussions without anarchy(that is done by using such things as civility and consideration for other editor's positions), but rather are occasionally are helpful in shaping discussions. They are not, however, the be-all, end-all, of discussions. There is a reason why WP:BURO and WP:IAR exists, and another reason why you should make your arguments not based on strict interpretations of guidelines, but rather by convincing people of the validity of your position using reasoning, not just declaring things must be so because somebody else wrote something. And I'm sorry, but while I could go along with a trimming of the page's contents, that isn't the same as deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page does seem to violate WP:NOT#IINFO in my opinion. It also fails WP:RS (as none of the sources are independent, being either episodes of the show or toy profiles) and WP:FICTION (as it's written in-universe). The level of detail is way too high, thus creating a high amount of fancruft. Passages such as "It's been shown that each alien tends to have its own personality, which somewhat intermingles with Ben whenever he becomes them." and "However, its paranoid creator went somewhat overboard in designing it: not only does it destroy itself, but the resulting explosion will create an energy ripple that will disintegrate most of the universe along with it." smack of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate info? FAQ? No. Plot Summary? Maybe, but I'm not convinced that's a problem warranting deletion. Lyrics? Nope. Statistics? Nope. News Report? Nope. Trivia? Not as a whole. Could be a reason to clean up though since I do feel there's a bit of improvement to this page. So I'm assuming you mean Plot Summary as a problem. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's not a convincing reason to delete, as that's more a clean-up issue than a deletion one. This isn't "Plot of Ben 10 after all" . Reliable Sources? Not a big issue. You can check the episodes for sources, or CN's website. Independent sources would only be needed if there's something contested. I don't see that as inherent to the concept of this page. Written in-universe? Not a deletion concern, but an editing one. This isn't "Manual of the Omnitrix" after all. Seriously, everything that concerns you can be fixed with a proper rewrite of the page, not a deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an example though, take the creator of the Omnitrix [57] is pretty confirming of that second line you quoted. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't see any weasel words. Could you perhaps be just a little more specific? Besides, wouldn't it be easier to simply edit out a few weasel words rather than to argue over the deletion of the entire article? The world's hungriest paperweight 23:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenmaster, you say that this isn't encyclopedic, yet I don't see how you came to this conclusion. Perhaps if you explained this better, we could come to an agreement as to whether to delete the article, keep it, or some other solution. The world's hungriest paperweight 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before we go around deleting articles, perhaps we should take a look at WHY they should be deleted. I happened to find a list of deletion reasons at WP:DEL#REASON. After reviewing these reasons, I see no reason to delete the Omnitrix article. Allow me to present my case:
    • Advertising or other spam without relevant content: Obviously not the case.
    • Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: This actually depends on what people consider "suitable." However, let me present my opinion. We already have an article for a televison show called Ben 10. A vital part of the show is the Omnitrix; many episodes revolve around the Omnitrix, and without it we would just be watching a fairly average family having a fairly average summer vacation. If the show is considered suitable, then something this important to the show should also be suitable (especially since there's so much to be said about it).
    • Copyright infringement: How could we possibly be violating any copyright laws?
    • Hoax articles: Again, obviously not the case.
    • Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic: Not an image in the first place.
    • Inappropriate user pages: Not a user page.
    • Inflammatory redirects: Not a redirect.
    • Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources: The Omnitrix is a piece of fictional technology created for the show Ben 10. If the show cannot be considered a reliable source of information for the Omnitrix, then what can?
    • All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed: Has anyone even tried yet? Take a look at the bottom of the page. True, a lot of the references are individual episodes (which, as I said above, should be more than reliable enough), but there is also information from Bandai, and it seems they know what they're talking about.
    • Newly-coined words or terms: I certainly don't see any. Besides, even if there are any, they can easily be removed or replaced.
    • Overcategorization: Again, doesn't appear to be the case and can easily be changed if it is.
    • Patent nonsense or gibberish: Still not the case.
    • Redundant templates: Not a template.
    • Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: I'm assuming this is the WP:FICTION thing you keep talking about (if I'm wrong, please correct me). If you want to use this argument, then why not delete all Ben 10-related articles, including the Ben 10 article itself! In fact, there could be a lot of shows that could probably be deleted from Wikipedia using this argument! As I said before, has anyone even TRIED looking for any "reliable secondary sources" yet? Instead of just trying to delete it, maybe you could try improving the article so that it wouldn't have to be deleted. (Also, as FrozenPurpleCube just pointed out, at the top of the page it says that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.")
    • Vandalism that is not correctable: STILL not the case.

Having said all that, I fail to see a reason to delete the Omnitrix article. The world's hungriest paperweight 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not crazy about the dearth of outside sources, and I think it doesn't meet all the requirements of the WP:FICTION guidelines, but there's way too much volume to merge this back into the Ben 10 article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Merge. After having a while to think about it, I've changed my vote. The technical details about the device can be placed into Ben 10, while the aliens can potentially be their own stand-alone List of Characters, which seems to be immune to every rule listed above. If not, the article can be made into an article on the main character, Ben Tennyson, along with info merged in from List of characters in Ben 10. The aliens are his alter-egos after all, so I'm sure that could work. Whatever the case, I'm sure that the article will soon be targeted by this "Fair-Use Overuse" movement which has been cutting images from lists, so images won't be a problem for long; I'd do that right now if not for a conflict of interest. You Can't See Me! 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, Ben Tennyson is part of List of characters in Ben 10. As subsections go "Aliens of the Omnitrix" isn't a bad one in this case, and as such, I have no objection to this proposed solution. FrozenPurpleCube 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think things are fine as they are, but if we have to compromise than this seems like the best course of action. We could just incorporate the technical info about the Omnitrix into the Omnitrix's section of the Ben 10 article, and then we could move the rest of the Omnitrix page to "List of Omnitrix aliens" or something like that. After all, most of the article is about the aliens. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it works, why not. I don't see why a compromise wouldn't work. Some stuff does need to be condensed a bit. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed a bit of Canvassing going on [58] and I must strongly advise everybody to not try to sway the discussion by seeking out the input of other editors in a non-neutral fashion. If you do feel that others should be notified, it is important to do so in a way that is completely above-board and not designed to just get those who might support your argument to participate. This applies to all sides of the discussion. Thanks in advance for respecting this concern! FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if we do it, we're fan boys. Funny, isn't it. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, don't do it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I did. I already know not to. How come everyone is misreading what I'm saying today? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 03:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, maybe it's the phases of the moon. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for Canvassing as shown above; I'll admit my wrong doings and take full responsibility, and I hope my actions do not harm the credibility of Ten Pound Hammer, who is a good person.Ravenmasterq 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hope you refrain from further actions like that in the future. There are appropriate ways to seek further input, but they do require being careful to remain neutral. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim & merge - Seems to be an important (even central) plot element to the series in which it appears. At the same time, while the main information should be preserved, there are already concerns that the article is too long. It seems to be longer than the article for any of the actual characters in the series. Should be therefore trimmed significantly and merged into the article about the series. From what little I know of the show, it wouldn't be much without this device anyway. ◄Zahakiel► 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split/Merge, device details could be trimmed and placed in main while aliens could be in a list article. Either way, it doesn't require deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to remove in-universe style fancruft and then merge to List of characters in Ben 10. Groupthink 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The (near?) total reliance on primary sources is deeply concerning. Jakew 10:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I noticed several users (perhaps only Ravenmasterq and Ten Pound Hammer) accusing the Omnitrix article of containing fancruft, but I just looked over the article and don't see anything that could be labeled as fancruft. Remember that the Omnitrix is a complex piece of technology and so is a lot to be said about it. I don't think saying there is fancruft in the article it is a valid argument unless you can give us some examples from the article of what you consider fancruft. The world's hungriest paperweight 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Omnitrix" is a complex piece of FICTIONAL technology, and the minutiae about it are only notable to fans... ergo, fancruft. Groupthink 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as fancruft goes, I consider it nothing more than a dismissive opinion that doesn't offer any real substantive argument, but instead attempts to reduce things to a simple derogatory term. As far as reasons to delete go, I consider it highly troubling and borderline insulting. As I've said many times, I really don't think it's appropriate to use in any form. It really just tends to cloud issues and increase hurt feelings. FrozenPurpleCube 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The 'Omnitrix' is a complex piece of FICTIONAL technology, and the minutiae about it are only notable to fans... ergo, fancruft." That can be said about many pieces of fiction, such as kekkei genkai from Naruto or the Halos from the Halo series, yet there are extensive articles on both subjects (I'm well aware that this may qualify as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just let me finish and you'll see my point). On top of that, there may be people who never watch the show and decide to come here for information about it. Those people may find the Omnitrix article very informative, therefore NOT fancruft. After all, I'm not a fan of the Halo series, but I came here once because I wanted to learn more about it (I found the Halo article very informative). Oh, and before I forget, there isn't much "minutiae" here: everything in the article is simply another vital aspect of the Omnitrix or an example of that aspect. Maybe the sections for the aliens can get overly detailed, but this IS the main article to resort to for information on their species, so where else are we supposed to put it? As Mister Manticore said, calling something fancruft simply "attempts to reduce things to a simple derogatory term." The world's hungriest paperweight 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I still don't see any examples. The world's hungriest paperweight 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

Keep - A lot of information, pictures, and references (even if most/all of them are episodes). Also, if you look at the history there is already over 400 edits to it this month (=O!!!!)! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd note [59] indicates this person is the brother of another editor here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so we've run WP:FICTION through the ringer a couple times; debated the finer merits of Fancruft and what they mean, visited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a time or two, but ignored is perhaps the one driving nail into the coffin for this article. And that, is notability. There are four subnotes to the general notability guideline for Wikipedia, and indeed, for general reference as well. Omnitrix fails all of them. The general requirement is: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'. Let's go over the detailed requirements as well.

  • '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.'
  • Sources in wikipedia are defined as 'authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.'
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
  • "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

I'll give you a chance to digest all that, but basically, the first detailed requirement for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. Now, I won't argue that Omnitrix does have a lot of sources. 44 of them! It certainly isn't a poorly sourced article, however, the sources aren't reliable. They are not independent of the topic (as all are either from the TV show, or from Bandai), and therefore they do not have a Neutral point of view. Obviously, the TV show isn't independent of itself, and Bandai, who licenses the show, isn't independent of it either. Therefore, all 44 sources fail independent source guidelines, and fail neutral point of view. Therefore, the first of WP:N has been failed as well.

Also, notability requires objective evidence. There is none here. While it seems that everyone involved in this argument voting keep disagrees thoroughly with WP:FICTION, there still isn't any real world analysis to this article. It is completely self contained, and has no bearing on the world outside of the Ben 10 cartoon. Therefore, it fails WP:N, and it needs to be deleted.Ravenmasterq 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you're complaining about suggests the article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Furthermore, your assertions about the sources are just ridiculous. A primary (or secondary) source for a television show does not fail NPOV, because it is not pushing a point of view to begin. This is not like a living person boasting about themselves, this is sources describing an aspect of the show. There is no point of view for them to be biased about, short of "man Powers Rangers sucks compared to this" or some other such nonsense. And finally, rules are not there to be followed to the letter, and you should know perfectly well that the main plot device in a series is notable. Use some common sense when applying the rules, because you're way too focused on them at the moment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree with your application of the notability standard, as it's overlooking a very salient fact, this television show is notable. (I see absolutely no disputation of that, but if you do find yourself wondering, it's not hard to check for yourself). Therefore, it behooves us to cover elements within the show, especially elements as significant as the Omnitrix. Should it be covered in a sub-article of its own, or in the main article? I think there could be points either way. It's certainly a distinct enough concept that it would at least be able to sustain a section, if not more. Finally, if you really need a reason try: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " . This is something where you need to be using common sense. I'm not seeing it. Instead, I'm seeing an excessive focus on the rules to the point where you're violating WP:BURO. Really, you're not even focusing on the actual subject, but instead on the rules. I'm sorry, but that's not going to persuade me when the rules themselves are to be ignored where appropriate. This is one of those cases. Can you make a case as to how it's not appropriate? FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said anything yet about this piece of fictional technologies importance in the real world. So, I am focusing on the subject, which is, how does this relate to us? I wouldn't need guidelines to know that the Omnitrix has no bearing on the real world. If anyone could find independent analysis, comparison to real world technologies, or something relevant to something outside the Ben 10 universe, there wouldn't be a problem with the article. Instead, it is an entirely self referencial page, and it needs to be deleted. I would not object to a small section about the device in the Ben 10 article, but not a 50+kilobyte page dedicated to it.Ravenmasterq 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just dedicated to it, but other characters in the show as a result of it. As for the page, it's not entirely self-referenced, as the data is drawn not only from the show, but secondary sources such as its toy line and promotional material by the toy-making company. It does not need to be deleted, you just think it does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that toys and promotional materials from a toy franchise are reliable, secondary sources suitable for use in an encyclopaedia? Jakew 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I might be misdefining the term. Regardless, they're reliable in either case. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to focus on any impact with the real world, as that's not the purpose of an article on the Omnitrix, which is to describe it as it exists in a work of fiction. That's my goal with any page like this. You may have another. You're welcome to your own goals, in so far as I don't object to supplementing the primary information with secondary material, but I don't see how they warrant deletion. If you believe less coverage is appropriate, then AFD is not the place for this discussion, but rather the talk page where alternatives such as merging content and page editing can be constructively discussed. Believe it or not, deletion *isn't* the only tool in the box. You may also wish to read the comment below. I think it provides a reasonable perspective as well. FrozenPurpleCube 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New perspective. Lately I've been thinking, and I believe I've found a new way of looking at both the article and the guidelines. (Yes, I said guidelines, not rules. Learn the difference.) Let's say, hypothetically, that there weren't articles on the Omnitrix and List of characters in Ben 10 and Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix and so on. Instead, suppose we had one HUGE article with all this information on it. That article would incorporate plenty of reliable secondary sources and have real world content. Although the article would be unrealistically long, all the major arguments you have used towards the Omnitrix's deletion wouldn't apply. Therefore, when applying such guidelines to articles that are a part of a collection of articles (such as my previous examples, kekkei genkai and the Halos), I'd recommend applying the guidelines to the collection as a whole, and not on the individual articles. The Omnitrix may not have any "reliable secondary sources" or a connection to the real world, but the show it is a part of does. If the show is considered notable, then such a major aspect/plot device of the show should be as well. That is common sense. The world's hungriest paperweight 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider your argument. First, content should be primarily based upon secondary sources. Therefore, there should be no substantial content for which such sources cannot be found. Therefore this article shouldn't exist, or should at most be a short paragraph in the main article. Problem solved! Jakew 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content? Does this mean you're applying the guidelines (which I will say again are NOT rules) to the content? Perhaps you should read WP:NNC. Also, let me remind everyone what is stated at the top of WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The world's hungriest paperweight 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines are not the only guidelines, and in fact they have a very close relationship to the core guidelines and policies. If a subject is notable then reliable third-party sources will have noted it. And if third-party sources have noted a subject then an article can be written that, by citing these sources, conforms to WP:V. If a subject fails notability or related pages, it usually fails verifiability, since that states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Jakew 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not a major concern here, this is a television program broadcast nationwide. Might even be DVDs available. If not, they should be sooner or later. That makes for a reliable, published source. It makes for a completely acceptable source to me, as the first place you should go for information about what happens in a work of fiction is the work of fiction. Can you come up with an actual problem, or are you just going to rely on what the "rules" say? If so, I'd say that the problem is the way the rules are written, especially on WP:V. Perhaps they need a rewrite to cover works of fiction more adequately. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to combine everything would be disasterous. True, what we currently have violates (or so some think) some of Wikipedia's guidelines. However, placing everything in one article would breach WP:SIZE; that's not just a violation of a guideline, but a hazard to the article itself. If somebody should happen to edit the whole page (as in, not a section), he or she runs the risk that the article will get cut near the bottom. Omnitrix breaches WP:SIZE as it is, so it's best not to push it farther. I tend to be a mergist Wikipedian, by the way, so to say no to a merge is a rarity in my Wikipedia experience. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem 1: article can't exist without violating policies & guidelines. Problem 2: article can't be merged in full without being too long. Solution: either harshly cut most of the content before merging, or delete the article. Jakew 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all have a different idea of what common sense is.Ravenmasterq 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is often "uncommon" . FrozenPurpleCube 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing as Ravenmaster. To me, common sense says that if an article exists about a work of fiction (such as many video games and television programs), then major aspects of the fictional world should be discussed in detail. If any of these aspects is too complex to be listed elsewhere without making the article rediculously large, or is simply too vital to the plot, then it deserves its own article. I think that the Omnitrix meets both of these requirements but, as I said, this is simply what common sense tells me, so you may not agree.
On a different note, I think I have been sightly misinterpereted. When I said to imagine all of the Ben 10-related articles as one huge article, I was not suggesting that we should take this course of action. I was simply trying to put things into perspective: Try applying the guidelines to the entirety of a work of fiction rather than focusing on a specific aspect of it.
I'd also like to agree with some of the things said here recently. First of all, the Omnitrix exists only within the Ben 10 universe, so if the show itself is not considered a reliable source of information, then nothing can be. Also, it is easy to verify the information on the article: Either go to Bandai's site or, best of all, watch the show. The first season is out on DVD already, and it looks like the second will be coming out in October. Therefore, using WP:V as an argument towards deleting the Omnitrix simply doesn't work. Just about anyone can verify this stuff.
Before closing, I'd just like to say that not everything has to follow the policies and guidelines to the letter. This article may not be perfect, but I hardly think its imperfections warrant deletion. Heavy editing, maybe, but not deletion. As has been said before, it seems several people here are getting so caught up in the details that they can't see the big picture. The world's hungriest paperweight 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're really starting to dig deep into the different ideas here, and this is a great page that exemplifies different wiki philosophies, and we've managed to cover a lot of ground. In regards to Hungry, I can see from where you are coming from, and you make a valid argument. I'm just concerned that the entire article is relying on only the TV show for information about it. Granted, the NYT isn't going to cover the finer points of alien transformation in Ben 10, and it never will. Neither will the LA Times, the Denver Post, or any other newspaper, magazine, et cetera. Whether or not they should cover it is an entirely different bag of kittens. My viewpoint stems from concern over the content. There isn't enough relevance to allow for this entire huge article to stick around. I won't say that Ben 10 isn't relevant, it's obviously doing well, what with the live action and full length animated feature coming out. But this one device, as important to the plot as it may be, isn't important in the real world. Keep a bit about it on the Ben 10 page, or on Ben's article. But so much in depth coverage of each alien form is unnecessary. Go power up the Ben 10 wiki, or start a new one. That would be an excellent place for this information.Ravenmasterq 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive I'm also beginning to see where you're coming from, Ravenmaster, and this most recent argument is perhaps the best one you've given so far. I'll agree that some of the information in the article is a little too in-depth at times, and perhaps such detail is more appropriate on the Ben 10 wiki. However, I still disagree with your methods of getting your point across. Nominating the Omnitrix for deletion was a rather hasty move. If you have problems with the content of an article, I'd recommend bringing up your concerns on the talk page first. This way users who frequent the page will have ample warning and an opportunity to correct any errors in the article. In the case of the Omnitrix, we could have transferred most of the information to the Ben 10 wiki, included some basic information about the Omnitrix into the Ben 10 article, and, after some heavy trimming, renamed the article to reflect what was left: a list of the alien forms available to Ben. I'd recommend trying this in the future before trying to delete an article. That being said, it seems all that is left is for us to come to an agreement. I'll do my part to make the article more acceptable without directly eliminating any information, just so long as the article isn't outright deleted. (But first I want to finish some "renovations" I'm making on the Golden Sun wiki, Golden Sun Universe, and there may not be much left for me to do here by the time I'm done.) I probably won't have anything more to say here, so this is Hungry Paperweight, signing off (okay, so I'm not really signing out, but it sounded cool). The world's hungriest paperweight 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with your project, and I won't make a lengthy response. If this does fail deletion, I hope we can work together to trim up the article and find a good home for a merge. But, my opinions stand, and thank you for a nice civil debate in this quite long chain.Ravenmasterq 03:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zfish9 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)okay, i have one question, why do you need real life analysis for SOMETHING IN FICITON? if we need it in all fiction, there would be NO FICTION AT ALL!!! thus, a good portion of the articles would be deleted. honestly, you need real life stuff for FICTION?[reply]
  • Question I just came across this discussion because my son was researching the Omnitrix for a project. I don't see how the Omnitrix is different than the Tardis except there is no information as to how the Ben 10 producers came up with the idea. If information from interviews with producers and the creators were included, would that make it an acceptable entry? I'm not trying to say that because there's a Tardis article there has to be an Omnitrix article, I'm just trying to understand the difference.Dlws92 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)dlws92[reply]
I think the primary difference between TARDIS and the Omnitrix articles is the way they are presented. While the Omnitirix article is all sourced from the Ben 10 TV show, TARDIS has sources from a veritable plethora of outside, reliable sources, such as School of Infomatics, University of Edinburgh, and Police Signal Box: A 100 Year History, University of Strathclyde. That's why it made featured article as well. I'm not saying Omnitrix couldn't be featured one day, but right now, it relies totally on the show itself, instead of relying on outside critique of it.Ravenmasterq 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, the Tardis has been around for a few decades. The Omnitrix? Only exist for a few years. Heck, there's probably more lost Doctor Who Content than there is Ben 10 content. FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Since the Omnitrix itself is the main focus of the entire show's plotline (a boy finds an alien device that gives him superpowers) I see no reason that the device itself should be without it's own article. The only way I could see this page getting deleted is if it were made into a redirect to "List of Omnitrix aliens" or something. Even then, it's just a matter of semantics about the title. The content itself is notable enough, regardless of where the source material came from. Just because most of the info on the omnitrix is from the show doesn't make it fancruft. Most of the info on the TARDIS came from the show. Ben 10 has already been made into movies, has a sucessful toy line, and ratings that warrant it's own template. I see no reason why the central pplot device in the show should be excluded more than any other articles. Next thing you'll be wanting is to merge the characters and villains together into one article too. Then it'll be made into a section on the main page of the show. Then it keeps getting smaller and smaller as if the internet has some finite storage space that is being taken up by info on Heatblast's homeworld. Sheesh. --Piemanmoo 09:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because there is space on the internet, doesn't mean we have to use it. Just like there is space on wikipedia, it doesn't mean we have to use it all. We're a lot better off if we don't.Ravenmasterq 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenmasterq's careful analysis. Lack of independent and secondary sources is fatal for an encyclopedia article, but typical of nonencyclopedic fancruft. The arguments for keep display a fundamentally flawed understanding of WP:RS (reliable, third-party published sources) and WP:OR (Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.). Quale 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (sigh) I was hoping I wouldn't have too say anything more, but I was just plain shocked by what you said, Quale. "A fundamentally flawed understanding"? In case you haven't noticed, many people here have different interperetations of what these guidelines and policies mean. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they're wrong. I'd say everyone's interperetations are equally valid (even if I don't agree with them all). Allow me to demonstrate. You quoted part of WP:RS, so I will do the same: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Since the Omnitrix exists only within the Ben 10 universe, the show itself is the most trustworthy and authoritative source of information for the Omnitrix. Also, we've already discussed WP:OR, and as Mister Manticore so very well said: "there's a difference between saying something happened and saying something means X." Original research is when somebody comes to their own conclusions based on the facts given to them, a.k.a. "saying something means X." What we have on the Omnitrix article is simply a collection of information gathered from Bandai and the show itself, a.k.a. "saying something happened." As for fancruft, I already asked for an example a couple of times. If you can't give an example of fancruft in the Omnitrix article, then I refuse to acknowledge it as a valid argument. As for the lack of independent and secondary sources, I have the ultimate argument to counter that, but I'm trying to put it off for as long as I can (kinda like a secret weapon). In the end, it may turn out that we are all just plain stubborn and unwilling to give in to the other side. I am willing to compromise (such as transferring info to the Ben 10 wiki and heavy trimming) but unwilling to let the Omnitrix be outright deleted. The world's hungriest paperweight 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be shocked all you like, but your reply demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding itself. What part of third-party published sources do you not understand? WP:RS isn't a restaurant menu, where you get to pick which parts you like and ignore the ones you don't. Clearly different subjects will be able to meet sourcing requirements to different degrees of rigor, but this page barely meets the most feeble requirement. It has sources, but they are all primary and not in the least bit independent of the subject itself. As far as WP:OR goes, I'll just say that I think your interpretation is wrong there as well. A 50K page detailing something happened goes directly to WP:PLOT, the WP:NOT prohibition against plot summaries. At the size of this page it's a particularly absurd and egregious example, as this is simply a fancrufty plot summary in different guise. (This page is almost entirely fancruft—I challenge you to find something non-crufty on this page that doesn't belong in the parent article Ben 10 instead.) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables for an extensive discussion of an article about an infinitely more culturally important and relevant topic that was deleted for these reasons. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad keep reason, but WP:ANINFINITELYMOREENCYCLOPEDICARTICLEWASDELETED is an excellent delete reason, especially when that more encyclopedic article's deletion was appropriate. Basically your argument is you only want to pay attention to the parts of WP:RS and WP:OR that suit you, you don't like the requirements in WP:FICT which several keep arguers have admitted this article fails so you'll ignore that guideline too, and you ignore the precedents of WP:PLOT as well, as you have a different interpretation. Those advocating delete haven't given just a single argument, but rather at least three (and maybe as many as six depending on how you count), and I don't think keep advocates have effectively answered any of them. Rebutting all the deletion arguments seems completely out of reach for this article as it doesn't meet any of the relevant guidelines. Under the circumstances, I can see why WP:IAR would seem an attractive keep argument. Quale 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Plot of Les Miserables being deleted didn't lead to Jean Valjean being deleted though. Or Javert. I wonder why. Perhaps nobody noticed. For that matter, there's a long Synopsis in Les Misérables and a longer one in Les Misérables (musical). The real problem with your argument though, is that it relies on an interpretation of the rules, rather than an argument based upon the actual subject. Certainly this content could be improved. Perhaps significantly rewritten, but there is no deletion necessary, as the intent is clearly meant to be as encyclopedic as an article on Luke Skywalker or the One Ring. Which I notice has no references. It'll probably need to be tagged. But do you think people would support deleting them? FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as far as it goes, effectively everything in this article would belong in the Ben 10 one, but for clarity and length, which are matters of convenience, not content, it goes elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that my arguments don't depend on the subject is false: one of my arguments is the subject lacks independent, third-party sources, which speaks directly to the subject. The rest of your arguments (it's too long to merge, etc., etc.) were raised and rejected in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables discussion. Everything of value in this article does belong in Ben 10, so merge it. If it's too long to fit, that's probably because it lacks any secondary sources whatsoever, like the entirety of the page under discussion. While the Plot of Les Mis comparison is appropriate, I think any comparison of Omnitrix to Luke Skywalker is laughable. Quale 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, all of those requirements are based on the rules, not the subject itself. Big difference to me. You haven't said why any of those things are needed for this article to be encyclopedic. A quick examination of the prior discussion might tell you that those rules are not being met with widespread agreement. Perhaps it's because there's been no focus on why those rules are needed? Maybe so. Maybe those rules aren't that accepted because they're just not applicable to the situation. Besides, if you're now saying this should be merged, even in part, then why does your initial comment above say delete? You may wish to modify it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as it goes, within Ben 10, I consider the Omnitrix no different from Luke Skywalker or the One Ring. Or Jean Valjean and Javert for that matter. It is one of the most important parts of the series, and no coverage of it is obviously not acceptable. Thus the question isn't one of deletion outright, but trimming. If you wish to participate in that discussion, it'll proceed on the talk page.

FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're looking for a page that's actually similar to the Plot of Les, try List of Ben 10 episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that List of Ben 10 episodes meets the guidelines of WP:PLOT in a way that Omnitrix doesn't. (In particular, notice how "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" applies to one of those pages but not the other.) I see that as a straightforward, common sense application of the guideline, and I think that most other Wikipedia editors who understand the guidelines would agree. Since you don't see any important difference between Luke Skywalker and Omnitrix, it doesn't surprise me that you don't see it that way. Quale 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about one thing, Quale: "List of Ben 10 episodes meets the guidelines of WP:PLOT in a way that the Omnitrix doesn't." That is because WP:PLOT doesn't really apply to the Omnitrix in the first place. There are no plot summaries (if there are please point them out for me). There may be bits and pieces of the plots of individual episodes or the overall storyline(s), but this is only to give readers a better understanding of the Omntirix and the alien forms stored within it. Even if WP:PLOT does apply here, I think the Omnitrix meets the requirements for exemption. Then again, that may be what you are trying to say, but just in case it isn't, I've said it. As for the Omnitrix-Skywalker comparison, I think it is accurate. It simply isn't the best comparison for the job. I think comparing the Omnitrix to the One Ring, or my earlier comparison to the Halos, would be better. All three are inanimate objects that serve as the centerpiece of their respective fictional universes. Luke Skywalker happens to be the protagonist of the original Star Wars trilogy, therefore he is also central to the Star Wars universe. Because of this, they should be discussed in as much detail as possible, either here or on an appropriate wiki. Comparing the Omnitrix to the plot of Les Mis, however, is poor at best (I am not saying that the plot is unimportant, only that it isn't the same). But that is just my opinion, and I do not expect you to agree. You have your opinion and, although I do not understand it nor agree with it, I respect it. The world's hungriest paperweight 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think List of Ben 10 episodes is a better and more appropriate article than the Plot summary of Les Mis, even though they're the most comparable in nature, far more so than the Omnitrix is to either the Plot summary or the list of episodes. This is due to the fact that an episode of a television show isn't necessarily part of a singular story line, but in a way a discreet work of fiction on its own (though a clear exception would be soap operas). However, that's got nothing to do with concepts within a work of fiction, which is a different question entirely. Why you even brought it up, I still don't fathom. There are much more accurate examples to use. An article like Luke Skywalker, the One Ring or even Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak is similar. A clear plot summary? It's not the same kind of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, I will admit that I don't understand all of the guidelines, policies, etc. inside and out. I'm simply trying to explain why the article shouldn't be deleted. Heavily edited, I can understand, but it is better to fix the problems than to simply get rid of them. Also, this is what I meant by bringing up WP:IAR: I will admit that there are very few secondary sources and no third-party sources. But if we waited for some independent source to review the Omnitrix and all its aliens, then we would be in for quite a long wait. The Omnitrix and its alien forms are vital to the show, therefore they must be covered in at least some detail. Therefore, our only option is to ignore the lack of sources and instead work with what we have available. I will not deny that the article contains more information than may be necessary (it already has a tag for being too long), but again, that calls for editing, not deletion. As for fancruft-or-not, the information of the Omnitrix itself can probably be trimmed and merged into the parent article. The aliens themselves, however, are basically a list of characters and deserve their own article (unless a page is made for Ben Tennyson himself, in which case they can be listed there). Although the aliens may be overly-detailed at times, such as information on their homeworld and civilizations, a good portion of the information is neccesary in order to understand the aliens; calling it "a fancrufty plot summary" is simply a way of telling us that you know little of the show in the first place. Speaking of which, I'd hardly call it a plot summary. It may contain aspects of the plots of certain episodes or seasons, but only when it provides information on or relates to the Omnitrix. Furthermore, WP:NOT#PLOT is not a prohibition on plot summaries. It simply states that a plot summary on its own is not enough, however: "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." This brings us to another point you made: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. In case you never noticed, WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways. We can't justify keeping an article just because a similar article exists, but in the same way we can't justify deleting an article just because a similar (or in this case superior) article was deleted. In fact, as Mister Manticore pointed out, the plot was preserved here, so I hardly think that it's a good argument either way. Finally, I am not ignoring WP:FICT. I am simply trying to put it into perspective. Earlier I gave an example of a hypothetical mega-article containing all information Wikipedia currently has regarding Ben 10. From what I understand of the guideline, this mega-article would meet WP:FICT's requirements. Once again, Mister Manticore has worded things perfectly: "effectively everything in this article would belong in the Ben 10 one, but for clarity and length, which are matters of convenience, not content, it goes elsewhere." I believe that covers everything you find wrong with my argument, so I will say again: This article calls for editing, not deletion. The world's hungriest paperweight 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explained precisely why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't cut both ways here: when a much superior article is deleted that has some important similarities to the article under discussion, that precedent is important. Everything from this page that doesn't fit in the Ben 10 article should be deleted, for clarity and length. Are you seriously arguing that this page has more value than the Les Mis plot summary page? That page was merged. Apparently editors of cartoon pages lack the skill in merging that literature editors display. The Les Mis plot page was enormous, and the valuable parts were merged, and the rest tossed. The same should happen here. It isn't harder to merge the encyclopedic parts of this page to Ben 10 than it was to merge the plot summary into Les Misèrables. Manticore's arguments don't say it perfectly, because the exact same arguments were used in the Les Mis plot summary discussion and rejected. Some of the people commenting here (this comment is not directed at you, but others) have made a career of opining on AFDs but spent precious little effort actually improving any articles. That's a shame. Quale 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And some people here would do well to remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. That's also a shame. Perhaps a greater one. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think there's a greater shame than wasting all your energy on AFD when you could be contributing some time and expertise to other parts of Wikipedia, but strangely I'm not at all surprised you don't agree. Quale 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What waste? AFD accomplishes many things, whether it's keeping an article, deleting it, redirecting it, or merging it. In fact, I've even convinced people to change their minds in a discussion. Including even the nominator of an article from time to time. I think I've accomplished quite enough on AFD that calling my time here a waste represents a highly mistaken point of view on your part. It's certainly not shared by everybody. FrozenPurpleCube 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think by "waste" he means complaining about the problem and not doing anything to solve it. Although I agree that it is a shame that some people do that, I have a greater shame to share with you all: people who try to delete articles rather than improve them. People who spend the majority of their time in AFD may have a variety of reasons. A valid reason is to expose flaws in the article and provide solutions on how to fix the article. This is not a waste. However, by trying to delete an article, you are telling people that its flaws warrant deletion, not fixing. If that isn't backwards thinking, I don't know what is. That is why I brought up Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Alternatives to Deletion. Before deleting an article, we should do what we can to try and improve it. The Omnitrix may contain a lot of "fancruft", but the majority of it is useful information for understanding the Omnitrix and, to a lesser extent, the show in general. Deleting it will be getting rid of a lot of worthwhile information (at least relative to the show). Spending time complaining rather than acting may be a shame, but trying to cover up a problem rather than fixing it is, in my opinion, a far greater shame. The world's hungriest paperweight 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, waste for me implies the time isn't well-spent, but then, the waste could, as you say, be blamed on the folks pushing for deletion instead of improvement. Given that Wikipedia is a work in progress with thousands upon thousands of articles, any edit to improve an article, even a succession of edits to make an article a featured one, is like picking grains of sand up to clean the beach. Any work you do anywhere doesn't mean that much in the great scheme of things, there's always more for tomorrow. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here is what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gives as an example of what not to include in an discussion: "Delete we do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." The comparison may not be perfect, but the same principals apply. Just because a superior article was deleted does not mean that this article should be as well. That's right, I said superior. I know next to nothing about Les Mis, but I have admitted (twice now) that a summary of its plot is more important than details of the Omnitrix. My point is not that the Omnitrix article should be kept in its entirety; in fact, I am aware that some of the information is unnecessary and I am more than willing to compromise. My point is that it does not deserve to be deleted. So far every argument in favor of its deletion have left me convinced of only one thing: the Omnitrix has much room for improvement. Rather than deleting the whole article, we should do what we can to make it more acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and whatever. In fact, Wikipedia's deletion policy should make this very clear. I forget where I read this, but I believe one of Wikipedia's policy pages said something along the lines of "deletion should only be used when all other options have been exhausted." Therefore, rather than deleting the Omnitrix, we should focus more on improving it so that it doesn't have to be deleted. As it currently stands, deletion would do more harm than good. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zfish9 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) okay, i say we KEEP the article. if you need a real life analysis, remember, IT'S FICTION! here's the definition from dictionary.com if you need it.[reply]

fic•tion –noun

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form. 2. works of this class, as novels or short stories. 3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. 4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation. 6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law. aslo this was in the wikipedia deletion process page: "...However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish9 (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  • Trim, Split, and Merge. Throughout the course of this discussion, many flaws in the article have been brought to my attention. Although I am still opposed to the deletion of the Omnitrix, I no longer believe that it should be kept as-is as well. First of all, there is a Ben 10 wiki, where the more detailed information can be placed. Secondly, the article already suffers from being far too long. Therefore, it would make more sense to trim the article down to the more vital information rather than delete the entire article. Next, the article is basically split into two parts: the Omnitrix itself (descrtiption and design) and the alien forms stored in it. The information on the Omnitrix itself can be merged into its parent article while the aliens can stand alone as their own list of characters (just like List of characters in Ben 10 and List of villains in Ben 10). To make a long story short, the article should be edited, not deleted. Although it is hardly a picture-perfect article right now, deleting it is even worse than not fixing it at all. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that this discussion page is now longer than the article itself. We've managed some good debating here!Ravenmasterq 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the point. We debate to reach a consensus. This just happened to be a long one. I've seen longer though. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to comment on that as well. A major problem with the Omnitrix page is that it is too big, yet in talking about it we've created an even bigger page. Kind of ironic, isn't it? The world's hungriest paperweight 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most everybody's glad to do some cleanup, the page could use a reworking. But then, I'll say the same of featured articles. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

Any particular in-universe problems you can identify so that they can be fixed? I disagree with the first precept, but I do feel improved writing is a worthwhile goal. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again with WP:PLOT. I thought we discussed this already. How is it a plot summary? Stop accusing it of being fancruft, too. I am beginning to identify what could be considered fancruft, but I'd say that this only makes up about 1/3 of the article AT MOST (probably closer to 1/4). Also, the more you mention WP:FICT, the more I will raise up two points.
    1. Try applying this guideline to the Ben 10-related articles as a whole, including Ben 10 itself, and not to specific articles. Ben 10 as a whole does meet WP:FICT (or at least as I understand it). The Omnitrix article, as it currently is, is too complex to be explained as simply as section of the Ben 10 article, which is why it has its own article.
    2. WP:FICT says: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." What may be common sense to one person may seem completely rediculous to another, but here is what common sense tells me: The Omnitrix is vital to the show. In fact, without the Omnitrix, there would be no Ben 10. Therefore, it must be covered in at least some detail. Otherwise, we might as well not mention the show, either, and I think I've already made it clear that Ben 10 is notable enough.
I will not deny that there is an extreme lack in independant sources, but that is why I brought up WP:IAR in the first place. IAR says: "If the rules prevent you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore them." Since we lack independant sources for information on the Omnitrix, we should ignore this lack (for the time being, at least) and instead work with what we have. If we don't, then we won't have any information on the Omnitrix, which is simply unacceptable. Also, what sources we do have are easily verifiable, so unless you're still hung up on the independant sources problem, I do not see how WP:V is a problem. Having said that, I do not deny that there are many problems with the Omnitrix article, but fixing these problems through editing is much better than trying to ignore them through deletion. If we deleted articles just because of a few technicalities, then Wikipedia would be quite empty. The world's hungriest paperweight 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The need for objective, independent, secondary sourcing is not a "technicality", WP:FICT says it should be treated with common sense AND the occasional exception (not OR the occasional exception), and ignore all rules does not mean disregard the rules lightly/flippantly/on a whim, because Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We need to delete articles that are not well-sourced because it's better to have a smaller but more credible encyclopedia than a massive behemoth that completely lacks credibility. Groupthink 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't explain myself as clearly as I thought I had. Or I've simply been misunderstood. Either way, allow me to try again. First of all, I thought carefully before bringing up WP:IAR in the first place, and I may have been a little hasty when I did bring it up. However, I think that this kind of thing is the reason IAR was created in the first place. As I've said several times before, the Omnitrix is vital to Ben 10. If we are going to include Ben 10 in Wikipedia, then we should also include the Omnitrix. However, there are no independant sources to turn to, which is why WP:FICT and WP:NOTABILITY get in the way. That is where IAR comes in: the lack of independant sources gets in the way of putting any information about the Omnitrix on Wikipedia. That is why I believe we should ignore this lack of sources and instead work with what we have. If you cannot see things from my point of view, then perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
On another note, you seem to think that the Omnitrix article is not well-sourced. However, let's use a little common sense here. If the show itself is not the most reliable and credible source of information, then nothing is. I also have to disagree with your opinion on deletion in general. Rather than deleting articles that are not well-sourced, we should first try to find an appropriate source. Personally, I doubt anyone here has even bothered to look (shamefully, I have to include myself). Deletion should be treated as the last resort, not the first.
Finally, I was wondering if you could clarify the following statement: "WP:FICT says it should be treated with common sense AND the occasional exception (not OR the occasional exception)". To me, it sounds like you are agreeing with me, although I find that unlikely. I already explained what common sense is telling me, so I will not repeat myself. From my point of view, the reason WP:FICT and other guidelines say this is similar to the reason WP:IAR exists: Sometimes the guidelines simply don't apply (the occasional exception) or can only be applied in certain ways (common sense). Need I bring my hypothetical mega-article out again? The world's hungriest paperweight 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HungryPaperweight, I think you're missing the point somewhat here. WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY are not there to "get in the way". Together with other policies and guidelines, they effectively encapsulate what it means to be encyclopaedic. And if you find that an article violates several of these, that's a pretty good indicator that it doesn't belong.
I also think that you're missing your point in your discussion of 'reliable and credible' sources of information. As an example, let's use geodes as an analogy for Omnitrix. What you're arguing, in effect, is that we should use geodes themselves as sources. But the problem there is that we can only give a superficial description. We can say that they're pretty, we could even describe some common shapes and colours, but we can't say anything meaningful about them. To do so, we have to rely on secondary sources: authors who have investigated the internal structure, reasoned about their formation, and so on. This is what makes an encyclopaedia article possible. Similarly, with Omnitrix the primary sources are inadequate for scholarly, encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. They limit us to a purely descriptive rearrangement of the show's plot, and nothing else is possible without a) secondary sources, or b) original research.
None of this means that the article is bad, just that the content is not appropriate for this particular encyclopaedia. Indeed, I can imagine that this article could be published elsewhere, in a reliable source and with some additional commentary, analysis, and comparison with real-world concepts. Once published, the article would be a very good source that we could then use, and instantly we'd find that in-universe issues, verifiability, and notability would become far less of a problem ("so-and-so remark that Omnitrix are 'of particular interest' in the field of fictional technologies, because of..."). Jakew 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that WP:FICT and WP:NOTABILITY exist to get in the way. (Please forgive me if that is how I sounded. I only created my account shortly before I discovered this conversation, and as I said earlier, I do not completely understand all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.) I simply said that their requirement for independant sources happens to get in the way in this case. Also, I would hardly call this article a "rearrangement of the show's plot," although I would appreciate an example if you can find one. Also, please stop bringing up verifiability. Just about anyone can watch the show and verify the information. I can't really argue with the geode example, except that geodes are a stand-alone subject whereas the Omnitrix is an aspect of a subject (in this case Ben 10), so I don't know how accurate the comparison is.
Beyond that, I feel that I continue to be misunderstood, so allow me to make my opinion known as clearly as I can: I will admit that there are many flaws in the Omnitrix article, but I believe that deleting this article is a bigger mistake than leaving it as it is. The Omnitrix is vital to Ben 10, so if we want to discuss the show, we need to discuss the Omnitrix. Currently, the Omnitrix has an article of its own. This may be a mistake, but it is a mistake that can be fixed without deletion. As far as I can tell, there seems to be little problem with creating pages that are little more than lists of characters, or even devoting entire pages to individual characters. This being the case, it can easily be argued that the alien forms stored in the Omnitrix can stand alone as list-of-characters-esque page. The rest of the Omnitrix page is information about the Omnitrix itself, which can be merged into other articles such as this one. Many of you have brought to the surface numerous flaws in the article, but we should at least try to correct these flaws before attempting to delete the article. For some reason, some of you can't seem to grasp this concept (I sincerely hope that I am wrong). To make a long story short, this page calls for editing, not deletion. If you wish to help us fix this article, please share your ideas/concerns here. Also, in the future, try to keep in mind that you should only delete an article after all attempts to fix it have failed (except in cases that are dead obvious, like spam, advertising, nonsense (ex: green farts taste like a brick piano, or: akdjofmnvc kjidmacoe komdciwa), etc.).
There it is. My opinion. My arguments. Scattered all over this page. I don't enjoy repeating myself, so please try reading through them if you haven't. (Now if only my internet connection would stop acting up.) The world's hungriest paperweight 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, those guidelines are not there to get in the way. Thus if they are in the way, they're treated with common sense and exceptions are made. They aren't meant to define what is meant to be encyclopedic, they are meant to provide a useful framework for editors. Furthermore, your analogy of geode is poor. A geode is not a work of fiction, but a physical object. A superficial examination of a geode won't tell you much. OTOH, there's quite a lot of information that can be found even in the most superficial examinations of fictional works. I've never known a geode to have a plot. Somehow, I just find your argument unpersuasive for that reason alone. Why don't you avoid the analogies, and try an argument directly about this particular and individual subject. Maybe you should at least tell us what coverage of the Omnitrix would be appropriate in your mind? And please do that not by referring us back to those guidelines, but by really talking about this particular subject. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quite a few issues were raised, let me try to address them. Ignore all rules is not a free pass, and I think ignoring verifiability is a bad idea. That is the central issue in my opinion. To put it simply, I think that an article on fiction that is based entirely on primary sources and is unverifiable with secondary sources does not belong on Wikipedia. It does not matter if that article is a "sub-article" of a larger topic or not. I reject the idea that summary style allows articles to ignore policy. Furthermore, this article does not inherit notability from Ben 10, it must demonstrate notability with reliable, independent sources. --Phirazo 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again, a misunderstanding. Nobody ever said that the Omnitrix inherited notability from Ben 10 (it may have been implied somewhere, but I do not believe that is the case). Rather, our argument went more like this: "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes, however - this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." By the way, this quote was take directly from WP:NOTINHERITED. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is suggesting that this article isn't to be verified at all. You may have problems with the use of primary sources, but I'd like to see a demonstration of an actual problem in this case. Do you have any, especially any that can't be fixed with proper editing? FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that my internet connection is working properly, allow me to continue. I am not trying to use WP:IAR as a "get out of jail free" card. Rather, I feel this is one of the situations that it was created for. Perhaps you disagree. However, if I was trying to take advantage of IAR, I would have brought it up sooner, or tried applying it to more than one argument. On a different note, Phirazo, your argument has brought up an interesting problem. Not a problem in your argument/opinion, mind you, but rather in the guidelines. It would seem that Wikipedia:Summary style contradicts WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FICTION, yet it is partially supported by WP:NOTINHERITED (remember my quote?). I'd hardly say that I know these policies like the back of my hand, so I don't think I can help clear up this mess. However, let me leave you with a hypothetical question to keep in mind: Why would summary style exist if the sub-articles it creates have to meet the notability guidelines on their own? The world's hungriest paperweight 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The omnitrix is a critical element of an important work of fiction, much like the Tardis for example. Wikipedia is better with an omnitrix article than without one, so IAR applies if it is needed. Verifiability is trivially satisfied since the truth of nearly everything in the article is very carefully documented with its associated source beyond any doubt. Secondary sources should be added to the article and that can't happen if the article is deleted. If those secondary sources do not currently exist then they surely will shortly, since Ben 10 has shown itself to be popular and likely culturally influential. -- Lilwik 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't make any assumptions about this article, that's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which hasn't even yet been touched on, suprisingly enough. Just because something could be or might likely be culturaly influential, doesn't mean it will, and doesn't mean that we can allow it under Crystal.Ravenmasterq 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CRYSTAL is about making predictions in an article such as extrapolating future history or a tentative schedule of future events, such as the release date of a movie that is still in production. It has no relevence to this discussion that I can see. We can make assumptions about this article; we just shouldn't include them in the article. -- Lilwik 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this is an odd question, but since people are invoking ignore all rules, I think it is pertinent: How does this article make Wikipedia better for someone who is not a fan of Ben 10? --Phirazo 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried explaining this earlier. Here's what I said: "there may be people who never watch the show and decide to come here for information about it. Those people may find the Omnitrix article very informative...After all, I'm not a fan of the Halo series, but I came here once because I wanted to learn more about it (I found the Halo article very informative)." Perhaps you don't agree, and I can understand that. Everyone has their own opinions, and (in my opinion) they are all equally valid. However, my point is that we need to cover the Omnitrix to understand Ben 10. Perhaps the current format is inappropriate, but deleting the Omnitrix article does more harm than good. The world's hungriest paperweight 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A merge from the "Description" section to Ben 10 would be fine since that section describes the device, but an in-depth OR analysis of every alien Ben can turn into is not really appropriate. This would not overburden the main article, either. --Phirazo 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That I can agree with you on. In fact, I'm already working on a merge-in-progress (it's a long way from being complete). I also believe I have mentioned that the alien sections can get overly-detailed at times. However, don't forget that the Omnitrix transforms its user into a different species, so I believe it is appropriate to cover these alien forms as well. In the same respect, I don't believe it would be appropriate or effective to merge the aliens into the List of characters in Ben 10 article (or at least not without making it quite long). Someone else is currently working on a possible solution to that as well, although I believe they could very well stand alone as a list-of-characters type article. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In fact, the article has its least value for fans of the series who already know nearly everything the article could tell them. Fans are the ones who are most likely to work on the article, but people new to the series are the ones who are most likely to gain something from it. -- Lilwik 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

Keep as per the excellent arguments made, particularly FrozenPurpleCube and HungryPaperweight. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm flattered that you think my arguments are so good, especially since I'm so new here. Of course, I'm starting to wonder if this conversation is going anywhere but in circles. The world's hungriest paperweight 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could put this Afd for Afd! : ) Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best idea yet! Though at the rate we're going, that one would last 200k....Ravenmasterq 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim & Merge into other related articles. Baring that, Transwiki to Ben 10 Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does contain useful information on each of the alliens used in the show. Does it really matter if they all come from inside the show? They are all mini characters in their own right. If you deleate this, you may as well deleate every other artical for a fictional character on wikipedia.Wild ste 09:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press Illustrated

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

Queried speedy delete for NN by WP:WEB. Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, though additional references would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Webster

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

No references, original research, no assertion of notability Hornet35 05:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I didn't see prior to link, but seems to be an adequate stub article as I just read it. Also sounds like it would be a very interesting article if someone would take the time and finish it. Was an accused and "guilty" Salem witch and hung, which is notable enough by itself. The fact that she lived after swinging all night makes her more notable. Pharmboy 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Interesting and, more importantly, notable subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Mike Powell

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

No assertion of notability. The character is a one-off hero in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and is a playable character in Medal of Honor: Heroes, but there are no external sources that claim the character is notable outside of the series. Arguably, the character is barely notable within the series, but that's beside the point. The article content is nothing but a plot summary of Allied Assault, and contains very little information about the character. A previous Mike Powell article was redirected to Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, but now leads to a disambig of notable Michael Powells. Scottie_theNerd 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. CitiCat ♫ 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z39.70

Z39.70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Google confirms the existence of something named Z39.70, but it only gives ~200 hits, which don't give the impression of notability. The one-sentence article is woefully insufficient and might technically fall under speedy deletion criterion A1 (no context). Shalom Hello 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up and up

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

I have heard the expression "on the up and up", but this attempt to explain the linguistic phenomenon is a hopeless failure, violating WP:V and WP:NFT, and failing to demonstrate notability. Shalom Hello 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Booster episodes

List of Dragon Booster episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm guessing this article was created by fans of the Dragon Booster series. Indiscriminate; Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor a directory. The main article has its own need of improvement, and I'm all for that, but the subsidiary list article(s) should go. --Stratadrake 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that there are absolutely no sources anywhere for the existence of the episodes of this television show? FrozenPurpleCube 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. However, with no sources cited whatsoever the article can't possibly meet WP:FICTION: "articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". Jakew 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manticore is correct in that episode-list articles are already established wikipractice (e.g. Category:Lists of television series episodes, and while I don't have time to compare them all, several don't cite any other sources beyond TV.com or the like, not necessarily a reliable source but any source is better than none, correct? Said list articles also do contain information such as airdates and production numbers, and splitting episode summaries off into a related list article helps keep the main article's "Plot" or "Synopsis" section in proportion to the rest of the article. I'm willing to say Keep here because the one cleanup issue (lack of sources) is easy to address (I'd have suggested Speedy keep if Jakew hadn't already spoken up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratadrake (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, Jakew your premise is faulty. These aren't fictional concepts, as they *are* real world episodes of a work of fiction. Big difference. What you're talking about is for other things, and I don't concur with it so much, but that doesn't matter since well, you're barking up the wrong tree. A lack of sources here only means that perhaps a cleanup tag like {{unreferenced}} should be used. Not that the page should be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of cleanup (since calls for cleanup are often empty promises in AFD), I just spent the last twenty minutes formatting the list article per the WikiProject TV recommendations and adding info such as airdates and production numbers, with TV.com as my ref. I think I've resolved the main fault of this article at this point (see my diff), and am willing to say Withdraw nomination (a.k.a. Keep). Care for a second look, Jakew? --Stratadrake 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Manticore, if you read the first paragraph of WP:FICTION#Defining notability for fiction, it's clear that the term "fictional concepts" includes the real-world embodiment of those concepts. The requirements are such that the article has to clearly demonstrate notability, otherwise deletion is appropriate.
Stratadrake, I appreciate the fact that you've improved the article. However, I don't think that a tv.com link is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Nor do I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a particularly good argument for inclusion. It may be that some shows are notable (see here, for example) while others are not. It may be that many of these lists haven't been tested in AfD, and if they were, the consensus might be to delete them. It may be that some of these have been tested but WP:FICTION wasn't considered (or didn't exist at the time). So I think we have to consider this particular article on its own merits. Jakew 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who started off by saying "articles about fictional concepts" rather than "articles about works of fiction" the two aren't the same. Don't blame me if you make the wrong arguments. Now in this case, if you object to the inclusion of this article, you'd have to question the notability of Dragon Booster instead. The list of episodes is a way to appropriately cover a television series. It's a matter of practice, where the notability isn't in question. Really, what would be the point of not including such a list? Leaving off information ? That doesn't make sense to me. Sorry, but I think you're focusing far too much on the rules and not enough on practice. But hey, if you want to look back on AFD for lists of television episodes...go right ahead. I'm sure you'll find a few. Or discussions involving stubs of television episodes where the consensus was to merge into a list. If you really do believe WP:FICTION somehow is a convincing objection to this sort of list, I suggest you ask on that page first for input, rather than try to develop consensus through AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that as the nominator of this AFD, I'm now favoring cleanup instead. Anyway, turns out there are plenty of results for a search of episode list -related AFD's, and the verdict for most of them appears to be "Keep". As for TV.com, I recognize that it's primarily a user-contributed site, but in absence of policies or guidelines specifically for "list of episode" articles (all I can find are the general policies), I'm just trying to follow the de facto standard set by countless other lists, one practice of which being that reliable or non, TV.com is commonly cited as a reference. --Stratadrake 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since notability is not inherited, I regard Dragon Booster as a separate issue. I do have some notability concerns with it, but this isn't the place to express them. Please note also that I'm not arguing against all such lists, only that each should meet the standards of WP:FICTION. Jakew 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I feel that would be your mistake. Notability is often inherited, in the sense that sub-articles are made from notable subjects. This is one of the clearer cases, where one has a television show. A description of the episodes of the show is reasonable to include as to do otherwise would be lacking comprehensiveness. Do you have some argument as to why it's not reasonable to cover such, as opposed to references to essays on Wikipedia which aren't actually applicable to this situation? I know shorthand references to WP:ATA are popular, but they are not always enough on their own. Sometimes they can even be totally wrong. FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, as with many things in Wikipedia, it boils down to what reliable sources discuss. It may be that a) reliable sources discuss neither Dragon Booster nor individual episodes, b) reliable sources discuss Dragon Booster as a whole but not individual episodes, or c) reliable sources discuss individual episodes but not the show as a whole (this may sound unlikely, but a controversy over a particular episode might cause that episode to have better coverage than the show itself). If a) is true then there's no reason to have either article. If b) is true then there's a reason to have DB but not LoDBe. If c) is true then there may be a reason to cover that episode(s) but not DB. Comprehensive treatment is highly desirable if and only if the subject matter is itself suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Jakew 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to argue whether or not Dragon Booster merits inclusion, that article is another matter. [60] tells me you'll probably not be convincing to most people. However, if you aren't making that argument, then you're making a needless objection and obscuring what is really the issue: How to cover this subject. I think a list of episodes of a television show is quite acceptable, if not absolutely mandatory. Do you have some reason why it's not acceptable? The only exception I can think of would be television shows like Soap Operas where there is no real episodic format. That is, however, not a source issue, but a content one. Worrying about individual sources? Needless. The episodes themselves can serve as the source for much of the content of the article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes are primary sources. We need secondary sources as well: the existence, quality, and depth of secondary sources allows us to determine whether the primary sources are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I have no problem whatsoever with including a list of episodes, providing that there is objective evidence that they're notable. Jakew 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have no problem including a list of episodes of a television series, since by common sense, such are included. Why? Because that's how the shows are organized, by episode. Not covering that would be incomplete. Thus I see your insistence on secondary sources to be a case where you're focusing highly on the rules to the point where you're not using common sense and failing to recognize the actual situation because you're focusing on the rule, and not the reason for the rule. Can you tell me why it's an actual problem to cover television episodes in that way? FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At a rough guess I'd estimate that more than a million distinct episodes of some TV show or other have been broadcast. We can't try to include them all, and we shouldn't, for exactly the same reason that we don't try to cover every book, every CD, or for that matter every person.
Suppose a Martian landed on Earth tomorrow, wanting to stay for a few weeks, and it wanted to know about the most notable TV episodes. If we give it an enormous list then it cannot hope to get a comprehensive selection of the important episodes: it just gets a small, arbitrary selection (limited by reading time) of shows of mixed notability. We've failed in part of our task to inform because we've failed to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Now, and somewhat more plausibly, imagine that you could set a non-computer literate person in front of your computer. Imagine you could tell them to press 'random article', and have complete confidence in what they'll find. Imagine knowing that the content will be fully referenced with high-quality, reliable sources, achieving the twin goals of notability and verifiability.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we select what to include based in part upon its notability. We have to, to maximise the value of the encyclopaedia as a whole. And we've determined that the way to assess notability, in general, is through coverage in third-party sources. I know that's not ideal, but I don't know of a better way. Jakew 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first premise is wrong. First, and perhaps most importantly, this isn't about the individual episodes, this is about a list of episodes. Potentially a huge difference. In any case, I don't see that Wikipedia should even begin to try to assert the most notable of all TV episodes. That would be the work of other people, and then, if appropriate we can cover their work. And in that case, the hypothetical Martian can be referred to that example. However, we're not writing this Encyclopedia so imaginary Martians can find out only the most important things. At least, last I checked, it wasn't part of the 5 Pillars or anything else. But just as the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies doesn't exclude any movie not on the list, that list wouldn't exclude every other television show. Thus I consider that a poor standard. Not as regards Dragon Booster, it seems to be an internationally broadcast television program. If any book, television show, or person had that kind of exposure, I'd not oppose them having an article. As such, I consider it as meriting inclusion in its own right. This being settled, we must address how to cover it. Can the episodes of this television program be covered succinctly? Yes, I believe so, unlike say, a Soap Opera, such as General Hospital with 11,000+ episodes over 44 years. In that case, I accept that the way to cover it is something like the decade format currently used. (Though I don't know that that is ideal, I do agree that in that case, an episode listing would not be functional). In terms of what a random article user will find, my concerns are that the article itself is informative and description. That's more often the problem with poor writing than anything else. Which can be a range of things, from the sloppy to the over-technical. I'm sorry, but your objections just don't fly with me. Either we're including information on this television show or we're not. If we are, then this list of episodes is a valid way to do that. And I do know a better way than following the "guidelines". It's called common sense and using my own cognitive proceses over a slavish adhering to the rules. Sometimes, believe it, or not the rules don't work. Sorry, but all you're convincing me of is that the rules don't always work. Luckily, we can ignore them when it's appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the matter of notability is not "settled". If you're arguing that merely belonging to a class of books, shows, etc with international availability is enough to be evidence of notability, then you're arguing to make significant changes to the rules. Jakew 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are disputing the notability of Dragon Booster ? Ok, go ahead and put it on AFD. As for the rest, you may wish to check some of the criteria. Like WP:BK which does clearly cover cases without secondary sources. FrozenPurpleCube 22:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Booster itself meets notability. Google may return mostly just fansites and forums, but that's just Google bias, after all the series launched in 2004 so that's where you'd find the most coverage by secondary sources. It's generally true that no single episode of a cartoon series meets notability criteria (except maybe for The Simpsons episodes, media coverage gravitates towards high profile content, and notability follows). But at the same time, this is probably true for the bulk of episode-list articles out there, and episode-list AFD's have generally proven an uphill battle.
As far as this eplist goes, I don't even know which side I'm on right now. I'm willing to clean it up to follow the example of other episode-list articles (such as the List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes), but not during an AFD. --Stratadrake 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep: If the series is notable then a list of episodes of the series has a place on Wikipedia. DCEdwards1966 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what Manticore says (and de facto Wikipractice for television shows in general), provided the list is addressed as part of a broader topic. Jakew argues that there is no official policy or guideline endorsing this (WP:TV project has no guideline for eplists either, just a recommendation to follow the examples of existing lists) . --Stratadrake 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugron

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

Article lacks references, and I don't see how any can be found online or in a library. Delete unless references somehow come to light. Shalom Hello 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polychronization

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

Polychronization is a term used by one person, Eugene Izhikevich. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a commonly accepted term. Hardly anyone in neuroscience has ever even heard of this term, and it is debatable whether the term is even useful since alternative terms have been used to describe precise temporal relations between spikes. Do a Pubmed search for the term, polychronization, and the only thing that comes up is the one paper by Eugene Izhikevich. Clearly this term, polychronization, is not significant to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe if the term becomes more widely adopted within the neuroscience community, then I'll change my mind. Placedood 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn WP:OR. Leibniz 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into an appropriate neuroscience article. If the term is not commonly used by other neuroscientists, it shouldn't have an article starting with "in neuroscience, polychronization is...". But the information about the spikes (whatever you call them) might be mentioned somewhere else. (I'm not a neuroscientist). Han-Kwang (t) 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Bass Player

Ugly Bass Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks reliable sources and does not assert notability. Shalom Hello 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Gallivan

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for her own article. Check the google results: [61] This person seemed to have her 15 minutes of fame for making a amateurish conclusion. We don't have articles for all record holders, so I don't see a need for an article for this one. Bulldog123 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Hardly an amateurish conclusion. References are good, and she derived the solution to a classic problem and showed that it works in the real world. This isn't a record for catching a grape in your mouth thrown from the roof of a building - it's a classic math problem. The fact that she solved it at such a young age adds points. MarkinBoston 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusion might be notable, but the person isn't, and their involvement in it seems to be nothing more than amateurish. I can find nothing but periphery mentions of this person, and there's way more material written about certain convicted criminals, who don't merit an article. So, as a biography of a notable person, it should be deleted, but as a significant event (perhaps in a math article) it should be kept. Bulldog123 05:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematics of paper folding seems to be important in mathematics Corpx 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you might as well snowball it. I was hoping somebody would notice that this person's notability as an individual is borderline non-existent, but it's all being overshadowed by the mathematical consequences. Bulldog123 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this person having any credentials, or establishment of notability, anywhere. Therefore, she would be considered an amateur. A grown-up making this conclusion would get nothing more than perhaps a few mentions in science journals/magazines (as this person did) but because it's an adolescent we're supposed to think of it as more notable? That's just plain silly. Bulldog123 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Absolutely wrong. Science is a method, it's the testing of a hypothesis by subjecting it to the evidence. Many major scientific breakthroughs were made by 'amateur' scientists. Science is something anyone can do because it's a way of thinking, rather than an abstract qualification. The fact that she got mentions in science journals and magazines is what makes her notable by wikipedia rules. Should she be disqualified because she was young? That is silly. Nick mallory 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is extablished by non-trivial coverage by reliable sources (cited below). Dbromage [Talk] 00:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like the person is notable as is the experiment. RandomCritic 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only did she do the experiment, she came up with the formula. I can only salute. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO. Experimented and came up with the formula, definitely not an amateur. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep and improve. Easily passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO but could do with more sources (easily found[62]). Dbromage [Talk] 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am related to Britney so am prejudiced, but I know more of the inside story too. Britney or no one she knew ever contributed to her page, which is now low in detail. Before her work was about to be released she talked to three math PhDs about the work, and they all thought it was significant. Her book has a letter of support and accuracy from the head of the math department of Harvey Mudd and includes a comment from the from the head of a skeptic society and now monthly article writer for the Scientific American. Her inclusion in the TV series Numb3rs was due to a mathematician adviser at Cal Tech for the program. The only two schools that have said they have confirmed her work are Cal Tech and Princeton. Even knowing her answer, it is not easy for professionals to solve the problem and the usually do not understand how she dynamically solved the wadding problem to allow the paper to be folded as used to be shown. None of the PhDs suggested any changes in her book. Most people comment on its comprehensive depth. One of her most interesting replies from a person who ordered her book was "My God!". Among other things she had to define mathematically what a fold was, so in essence she not solved the problem but also defined it. Half of her booklets (that she donates the small profits to a historical society) go outside the United States and I would say 35% go to colleges. Of the over 12,000 Goggle hits on her name, many are teacher quoting her outstanding tenacity in tackling problems, as a good example. They often list the Wikipedia site as a reference. Many of the sites show Britney actively encourages others to set higher standards and enter the sciences. She finds more pleasure and science and encouraging young people than fame. The fame aspects crept up following when MathWorld http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Folding.html mentioned that they found she had entered her work into the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Britney was an invited keynote speaker for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Regional Conference in Chicago, Illinois on September 22, 2006. She has helped prepare high school students for math contests, with out ever telling the students of her folding work. She and her work has been mentioned in almost every major language. Prof Gall —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGall (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep multiple independent sources, notable, encyclopedic. Gandalf61 09:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as noted earlier, it passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO. Earthsound 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: History is made up with these small pieces. I will translate it into Spanish taking the chance of the Translation of the week Mathematics of paper folding. --OceanO 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chaser - T 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Ann Cevoli

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

The notability of this person seems borderline. The article reads like something written by a manager or press agent, rather than an encyclopedia article. No interviews or secondary articles are cited. Greatest claim to notability seems to be as a voice actor on Robot Chicken and as an uncredited actor on Deadwood. eaolson 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deadwood" (10 episodes)
    • Mr. Wu (23 May 2004) - Gem Whore
    • A Lie Agreed Upon: Part 2 (13 March 2005) - Gem Whore
    • New Money (20 March 2005) - Gem Whore Tess
    • Requiem for a Gleet (27 March 2005) - Gem Whore
    • The Whores Can Come (15 May 2005) - Gem Whore
    • Boy-the-Earth-Talks-To (22 May 2005) - Gem Whore (uncredited)
    • Unauthorized Cinnamon (23 July 2006) - Gem Whore Leah (as Leah Cevoli)
    • Leviathan Smiles (30 July 2006) - Gem Whore Leigh (uncredited)
    • Amateur Night (6 August 2006) - Gem Whore Leigh (uncredited)
    • The Catbird Seat (20 August 2006) - Gem Whore Leigh (uncredited)

Which means that she has been credited in 6 different Deadwood episodes, as well as being uncredited only 4 times. And she has been voiced character on 7 different episodes of Robot Chicken. If notability is your only reason for deletion, then I'm going to have to disagree. The article can be cleaned up though. Pepsidrinka 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chaser - T 03:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, such a common ethnicity means the article escapes WP:NOT#IINFO ELIMINATORJR 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Americans

List of Russian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Ukrainian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First of all, it's painful to have a list which includes both Vladimir Nabokov and Debra Messing. Anyway, for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans, etc. etc. Bulldog123 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I understand the rationale for deletion, but I'm not convinced. If all the items on the list are blue links and are referenced, that's good enough to spare the axe. Shalom Hello 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already spoken on a few of these - keep only with strict requirement, first generation or second generation, both parents first generation. Otherwise, Delete. I do think Nabokov wouldn't mind - he had a wicked sense of humor. The references don't do it for me - one on another page was "father's grandfather was German". That's a citation, but the guy is not "German-American". Wikipedia requires explicit definitions for lists - these lists have none as of yet. MarkinBoston 03:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the reference keeping James Franco on the list. He says, taken in pieces, "I'm Russian" even though he's apparently a quarter Russian (and perhaps, not even, as who knows what Russian was defined as during that ancestor's time). The sources are very WP:SYNTH-like. They're not showing cohesion. It makes it seem even more like a bad assortment of articles based on seemingly non-notable standards. Could you really have a sentence next to each name that says why having a Russian grandfather is notable? Bulldog123 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a Russian grandfather, or being Russian, is not notable. Being Russian-American, or the child of Russian-Americans, would be required to get you on the list. Then, you would also have to be notable. I can imagine a school assignment: "Write an essay on xxx-Americans". This would be a good resource, as long as the list is accurate. To be accurate, you need an explicit rule for getting on the list. MarkinBoston 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Save one, it is entirely blue linked, so that silly argument doesn't apply. Delete because of overcategorization in the list. i said 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:MarkinBoston. Having a minute amount of Russian in you would warrant your inclusion into a list like this, and thus making it loosely associated. Categorize if needed Corpx
  • delete This what categories are for.----DarkTea© 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is incomplete. However, if that's it, then "it's painful" and "for the same reasons as" something else are not valid reasons for a nomination. Sorry, what magic words do I invoke now, WP:NOMINATION or WP:DELETE? I think WP:AFD will take me back to start. Even after the nomination is fixed, however, I would refer to the sourcing and editing. It's odd... all these "Blank-Americans" articles seem to be written by the same person, and nominated for deletion by the same person. Mandsford 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, far too loose a connection for a list. Oh, and for the record, it would appear that James Franco's mother is of entirely Russian Jewish descent. However, that still casts doubt about his listing here - her family wouldn't have really been seen as Russian by the Russians, or by themselves, back in the day. Whole different culture, ethnicity, and language that non-Jewish Russians. Mad Jack 18:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. Badagnani 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and discuss who gets included on the talk page for the article. Ethnicity is not too loose a connection for a list. In a sense, the most important connection between people, as judged by themselves. The descriptions of the people could not be done in categories, which would just be a list of articles. This is much more than a list of articles. DGG (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasoning. —dima/talk/ 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're both very useful to Wikipedia readers. I agree that there should be an explanation as to why these people "made" it on either list, and the categories would take care of the rest.--Riurik(discuss) 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar tagging

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

Unreferenced, probable neologism; Google brings up nothing relevant. Oli Filth 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tripatra

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

The page reads like a PR release. A google search finds no sources. The article is orphaned. New England Review Me! 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank

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

Not a notable person Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person fails all the inclusion tests for notability of people. He is not the subject of substantial coverage. He is not widely recognized. He has not been the subject of a credible biography, etc ,etc. His inlcusion in Wikipedia appears solely related to his Wikipedia presence. He was targeted by MichaelMoore dot com for his edits on Wikipedia and his biographical details have been increased but nothing that substantiates notability. He is a lawyer. One of millions it seems. He has not achieved any notable awards that would warrant a biography on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1

  • Delete as nominator. --Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems to have been created as a result of the Wikipedia mm.com debate, which really isn't enough for this to be an article. ATren 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You *do* realise that the article was created two years ago, correct? Not related to the Michael Moore stuff at all. Risker 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I do, but until yesterday it was deleted - it had been speedied a while back and was only recreated in response to the Michael Moore/THF firestorm. I'm not assuming bad faith in any way, I just felt that the article had been uncontroversially deleted before this whole thing started, so it probably should stay deleted. That's all. ATren 08:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedily close nomination. Speedy deletion is only appropriate when an article does not claim the notability of the subject. The article as originally written claimed he was a "prominent" attorney; as nominated that word had been removed but there were links to comments and pieces by (but not about) him in major publications. I have re-added a statement that he is a "leading" advocate of tort reform, a comment that appears regularly in 3rd party sources throughout the 10,000+ web pages that mention his name. If deletion is at all appropriate it would be under the AFD process. However, I believe that too [deletion] is unwarranted because the individual is clearly notable. I accept that the nomination is in good faith but if I may ask, please do not make assumptions about my motivations for writing the article (WP:AGF). I have no ax to grind and have not taken part in any of the Michael Moore Wikipedia debates other than to admonish all sides to take a deep breath. Although the Wikipedia debate alerted me to the issue, I wrote the article after conducting numerous web searches briefly reviewing who he is. Tort reform is a significant political issue in the United States, his organization is one of its major proponents, and he is a fellow and one of the leaders of the organization. He writes prolifically and his name is often in the news. Like it or not, a political activist can boost himself to prominence and notability by writing a lot, taking part extensively in the public debate in America, and catching people's attention. He seems to have done so. A comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of the state of the tort reform in the United States should include information about this individual. Wikidemo 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [note - I struck some comments relating to speedy deletion because, despite the initial speedy deletion request and tags, we are now back in AFD][reply]
    • This isn't a speedy delete request, it is a normal AfD. The claim you added is from the law blog hosted by Wall Street Journal (a notable blog, but a blog nonetheless). Nor have I taken part in the MM discussions. I merely note the buzz on this article has been created by that link. That's a simple fact. That appears to be his main claim to notability here and it simply isn't enough. We don't regularly create biographies with such a low level of notability. For example, the author of the blog entry doesn't have a bio here, neither does Frank's counterpoint, John Fabian Witt who penned the op-ed that Frank responded to. Nor does the head of the ATLA, Jon Haber. Please don't see that as a call to create these bio's as that would be a WP:POINT violation. Of the three people who commented or wrote about this in the WSJ article, Frank is the least notable and the only one with a bio and it was substantially created after MM link on his home page criticizing Frank, not as a lawyer, but as a wikipedian. --Tbeatty 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what they say about 'Foo'. That there are no articles on Witt or Haber have no force on Ted Franks article. Being on MM's page gives him notability the others dont have too.. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'd say Michael Moore's criticism wasn't only directly "as a wikipedian". But rather (and I had better phrase this very carefully if I don't want to spend the whole weekend arguing over it) that Ted Frank's prominence as a policy lawyer/professional ideologue made his editing noteworthy for examination of issues of conflict of interest. After all, having an absolute nobody edit the articles would hardly be worth a personal mention. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you that his association with AEI opens his edits for scrutiny for COI. Just as any edits by an AEI employee (or any organization) should be scrutinized. That is not an assertion of notability, however. It seems that Ted Franks prominence as a Wikipedian is what attracted Moore's ire, not his prominence as professional. --Tbeatty 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Michael Moore website item described Ted Frank this way: "Frank Defended Merck in Cases Concerning Vioxx The American Enterprise Institute is a Right Wing think tank" (I know an objection has been raised to that "Defended" wording, but even if a mischaracterization, the point here is that it's a reference to his legal work). He wasn't described in terms of "prominence as a Wikipedian". And indeed, he isn't "prominent" as a Wikipedian (though if things continue on the way they have he may soon be notorious as one - joke!) -- Seth Finkelstein 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The objection raised by Moore is that he edited the wikipedia article Sicko 96 times. Heck if I just go by word count, it's lawyer = 7 vs. Wikiepida editor = 50.. But I'll grant that neither claim stands on it's own. He's a lawyer that edited the Wikipedia article 'Sicko'. He is still not notable even if Michael Moore doesn't like him. --Tbeatty 05:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get real here, folks. In any other context there would be no question as to notability. He's a nationally prominent pundit. It is silly and strains credulity to claim otherwise. The only reason this is an issue is the flap over Michael Moore. If we removed that issue, his notability is not open to serious question. The guidelines list various nonexclusive factors and caution that none are necessary or sufficient; we are to consider the person's prominence. Specifically, is he worthy of note? The guy is relevant. He articulates the agenda for tort reform. He is all over the websites, print pages, and airwaves, and his high-powered little institution has the attention not only of the press and the people but our national government. As a media personality he makes press but the press does not write about his life because mainstream media does not cover itself. However, as an author and commentator he is clearly prolific and widely read. Look at his peers among the +/- 90 AEI fellows. Going through the list alphabetically there's Michael Barone (pundit), Roger Bate, John R. Bolton, Lynne V. Cheney, Christopher DeMuth, Thomas Donnelly, Mark Falcoff, David Frum, David Gelernter, Reuel Marc Gerecht, James K. Glassman, Jack Goldsmith, Michael Greve. I lose steam after G but skimming the rest I see Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, John Yoo, Allan Meltzer, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Novak. To say that half of this band is notable and the other half is not, strikes me as saying that two Beatles are worth articles and the other two are not. They are all making the music and the audience is listening. Wikidemo 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) they are not the beatles and I've illustrated the others that are not notable and he falls in that category including the two other people in his specific group at AEI and B) the other context was Friday when his bio stub had sat unedited and unnoticed for 2 years. Why now would it be different? Others have tried to justify the trolling by MichaelMoore as the reason for notability. Hard to believe we would support that. --Tbeatty 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is absolutely no question that a person of this prominence ought to be in any serious encyclopedia that includes current biographies. That this was even nominated for deletion is making me laugh. --Dude Manchap 03:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Does not appear to quite meet WP:BIO, either generally or under "creative professionals". I'm also not comfortable with the circumstances of the page's creation. - Crockspot 03:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Being a "Fellow" of AEI isn't exactly a high honor. The title is made for the media, and does not mean that they give him a office and a secretary. Being part of an organization that is notable is worth something, but I don't think this guy inherits notability as a result. The country is crawling with self-important "activists", but few are notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. MarkinBoston 03:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are sources, but none of the ones that are truly notable or reliable seem to actually be about him. Being a member of a notable organization does not mean notability, if it did every Wikipedian would get their own page-- which also leads me Crockspot's point that the page was probably not created with good intentions. --lucid 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He's not super-famous, but he's "director of the American Enterprise Institute Liability Project", and at a high enough pundit level to have e.g. a Washington Post Op-Ed. Seems to be well-known in his field of legal policy. He was also a certified Usenet Net Legend, and that ought to count for something. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, Frank made it clear to me that he doesn't want to be associated with those actions, if I understand his comments on my Talk page correctly. If I am correct, then that cannot be mentioned per WP:BLP -- & there is one less reason to keep this article. A pity, since that would keep at least one Usenet-related article from becoming a Featured Article. -- llywrch 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. Is BLP now being interpreted to mean that an article subject is entitled to pick and choose which parts of his or her life can be covered? Can Larry Craig assert that he doesn't want to be associated with his actions in the Minnesota bathroom, with the result that even a truthful account of the incident must be expunged from his article? JamesMLane t c 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to Llywrch was that he mischaracterized historical facts and was reopening a stale thread (something he does again here, but let's not derail the discussion). If the article is kept, I have no objection to truthful accurately-characterized reliably-sourced BLP-compliant NPOV-compliant WEIGHT-compliant materials being included if they are found notable. That would imply that information from books like Internet Culture and magazines like Wired are acceptable; Usenet posts and the Brandeis Justice school newspaper and ravings from tax-protestor and self-published websites are not. Ted Frank 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I won't derail the discussion by expressing my disagreement with you about school newspapers.  :) JamesMLane t c 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and strong speedy closing He is by far notable enough for an article and this vote is an out of process and IMO for bad faith reasons. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Asserting bad faith in this situation is an ad hominem attack. Please keep your comments to the matter at hand. Repeated assertions of notablility do not support themselves. MarkinBoston 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is going to be an emotional discussion -- if you've been reading WP:AN/I for the last few days that shouldn't be a surprise. So I recommend to any Admin considering closing this AfD discussion to let it run the complete period -- otherwise it'll be sent to DRV, bounced back here & repeated. (See Sisyphus.) Not to say that this won't happen in any case, but I suspect it definitely will if someone tries to cut corners here. -- llywrch 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources clearly establish notability. Everyking 08:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man is notable. Ignore the stuff he's been doing onwiki and look at the article. I do not believe that Wikidemo did anything in bad faith, I believe she looked up a public figure, noted he didn't have an article, and created one. Isn't that what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be about? WHy do we keep getting caught up in the ceaseless circle of someoneone does something, we get all angsty about and try to cripple our own work for the sake of drama? Come on people, even if you yourself would rather fight than write, at least don't stop other people from doing so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The subject of the article is not so notable that we need an article on him in order to keep credibility as an encyclopaedia. The subject clearly does not want this article (which is attracting editors who have a personal dispute with him). And, as Jimbo says, Wikipedia is not here to make people sad. ElinorD (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referenced and notable. AR Argon 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references to his views—which he's supposedly known for—are not about his views at all, but rather about other subjects where he's been quoted, apparently because he works for a conservative think tank. This is all trivial coverage. Also, I'm certain that neither the creator nor the nominator acted in bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying the section should be deleted? I would tend to agree but we don't need to go through AFD for that. As some have commented (and is mentioned in the article) he has taken on many issues, probably many dozens, from medical malpractice to asbestos, so listing four in the section (Virginia Tech, Michael Moore, home foreclosures, and criticism of Wikipedia) is somewhat arbitrary, does not represent his more serious work, and may run into WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issues. If that is a problem, why not simply delete or fix the section? It's a moving target, though. The article is being heavily edited, perhaps faster than we can keep up with in an AFD discussion Wikidemo 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think the section should be deleted, but that the whole article should be deleted because that's his principle claim for notability. As noted above, none of these articles are actually about Ted Frank or his views, so nothing establishes that his views are notable. I would change my vote if a source genuinely profiled him for being influential or notable on at least one subject. Then his work on that subject would merit inclusion in the article, and the article could have a place here. Cool Hand Luke 13:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article only been in existence for 18 hours! Give us a bloody chance, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A current lack of reliable sources only means we have not found them yet and in any acse is not a reason for deletion. Please have patience, this article has only been in existence for 18 hours! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in existence for two years with no sources because they don't exist and he's not notable. --Tbeatty 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly utterly untrue if you read the current article, and not the two years old stub! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Look at the logs. This page was created fresh again yesterday, and some of the ancient speedy-deleted edits were restored. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Most of the things he has been doing are only to be expected of someone in his job, which is in itself not a reason for notability (in that case we would have to include about every project leader in thinks tanks, institutes and every university professor in academia worldwide because these tasks fit their work profile as well). Probably most notability of this person is derived from him being an active Wiki editor. Arnoutf 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, given that his editing of Wikipedia is nowhere mentioned in the article and Wikipedians do not get chosen at random to be pundits on the BBC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is especially funny about the "not notable for doing something expected of his job" is it would make almost everyone unnotable. "Celine Dion is not notable for singing, which is expected of her." "Floyd Abrams is not notable for being an attorney, since it is expected of him." etc. --David Shankbone 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a non-argument; among the thousands or even millions of singers Celine Dion is notable (ie more than average professional singer), among the thousands of think tank members (who all publish and are all interviewed) this guy seems pretty average; hence not notable. Arnoutf 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's getting pretty obvious people aren't voicing the real reasons for their deletion votes. Not enough reliable sources? How do we know that, and when on earth did that become a criteria for deletion? This article has hardly existed for TWENTY FOUR HOURS, and already people are claiming the depth of coverage is not satisfactory. We have articles on Wikipedia that are one sentence long, but a page long article with 16 references can't be allowed to develop and improve for even a day? No wonder new users get discouraged on wiki. Unless they start articles fully formed and perfect in every detail they risk getting their work destroyed within hours. Give this article a few months, at least, and we'll see how it goes - isn't that the wiki way? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like commenting specifically on whether this article should be deleted or kept. AfD, in my opinion, regularly reaches poor conclusions with regards to Wikipedia-related subjects. But I would like to point out that there is not very much non-trivial press coverage of the man. There is enough to make an regarding his biography (professionals often distribute biographical information) and make a few quotes (but without any reference suggesting why they are important). That said, if it is decided that this article is to be kept because the man is indeed notable, if only slightly, then another point ought to be raised. Should the article be deleted on WP:BLP grounds? I don't know, and do not feel like becoming embroiled in a debate, but this option should also be considered. --Iamunknown 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because a notable person acquired an article because someone (who had nothing to do with the dispute in question, and remains a neutral party on it) noticed he didn't have one during a spat he was having here, we must necessarily delete it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, straw man. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you said, ceramic dude, is that an article may not exist if it has the misfortune to be born in the fires of wikidrama - which is just so much straw, wouldn't you say? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was wary of the circumstances of the article's creation. I didn't say that the article should be deleted solely because of that. My main concern is the failure of WP:BIO. I consider this conversation finished. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have already expressed concern about the eagerness to delete an article not a day after its creation, when it is still in its fledging stage, but I additionally ask that people hold off due to the fact that Ted Frank is changing job on September 5. He seems to imply it's quite an important one complete with press coverage, and if so, it is possible some of the people voting delete on grounds of non-notability may regret their vote later on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev, there's nothing at that link about a new job -- just some posts about Wikipedia & Wikiality. Although a bit of poking around on that site did uncover a link to this article where Frank is called a "conservative legal celebrity", which argues somewhat for notability. -- llywrch 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The really fun part is going to come after they delete the article, and then the press coverage comes out with the announcement of the new job September 5" is what I was referring to in that post. Also, Abovethelaw.com appears to be the legal version of dlisted, so we can't use it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. AbovetheLaw. Well-known blog. Not an RS. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Elinor. If the subject wanted the article it would just about pass notability but as it appears subject doesnt want article and he is on the borderline of notability then I say delete, SqueakBox 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has said no such thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Elinor did, above which is why I said based on Elinor. If someone can clarify that he does want the article I'll change my vote but if no-one can I'll give Elinor the benefit of the doubt, SqueakBox 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (multiple e/c) SqueakBox, as far as I know, Mr. Frank has not commented on whether he wants or does not want this article. See User talk:THF#I'm watching it, where he says, "...if I say I want it [this article] to survive the AFD, people will claim I'm self-promoting, and if I say I want it to flunk the AFD, people will claim I'm trying to "cover it up." So unfortunately, the only answer I can give is that I want Wikipedia policies to be applied as they would be applied to any other BLP, and that I'm going to abstain from the discussion." Kind of dismal, but that is probably what would happen—our community is so messed up. :\ --Iamunknown 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well thanks for that. Based on what you say and my little knowledge of the user and the case I am going to stay with my delete vote. I am not American but it does seem like he is on the borderline of notability and I think we should be very conservative in enforcing BLP (ie give delete more of a chance than keep though if he had said keep I would have changed my vote, SqueakBox 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote a comment, pressed "save", checked my emails, and then returned to find my post hadn't taken because of an edit conflict with THF. My comment was as follows: "He has not directly said that he wants it to be deleted, but it is certainly the impression that I have picked up. If I'm mistaken, he's welcome to email me." Given the confusing comment below, and the fact that after he had complained at the addition of the notable wikipedian template, and people had edit warred over it, he had finally undone the commenting out himself, saying that he has nothing to hid, I really do not know what he wants. I maintain that he is not notable enough to mandate inclusion. I feel that it must be galling to have people he's in dispute with turning up to edit the article. I feel that there are people on both sides of the issue of respecting or not respecting his privacy who are behaving rather poorly. I have nothing else to say. ElinorD (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is my impression that THF is being deliberately non-committal and ambiguous, for the reasons he states: he feels that whatever he says will be twisted and used against him. It is also my guess that, after a good night's sleep (and, perhaps, a funny movie :-)) he decided to reconsider his attempts at regaining some level of anonymity. No doubt the edit warring on the "notable Wikipedian" template contributed to his decision. Note: I don't speak directly for THF, this is just what I have surmised from his comments on the matter (particularly, here). ATren 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His wishes play no part in this. He is a public figure, not by accident of circumstance or for some shameful act but because he is a prolific pundit and advocate who seeks the spotlight. The biographical material from which we and others source the information are there at his direction. As a conservative who does not shy away from a fight, he has all kinds of bad things said about him all over the Internet. But not here. The article is not derogatory at all and should not be, as is our policy. The problem here has been the bickering, not the neutrality of the article. A neutral article does not, in Jimbo's language, make anyone said. Any person at that level of prominence should be pleased to have a fair, neutral article about them on Wikipedia, and if they are not pleased it can only be a matter of spin control, not unfair portrayal. BLP is to avoid defaming someone, not to bow to spin control. Wikidemo 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disregarding my beliefs we should not have articles about editors, the sources seem to say he is in fact notable. While we can argue those are normal items for a person in his position, the sources covering those issues give it prominence. If a secret service agent was featured in the news for saving the presidents life, you would not say: "he is not notable, its just his job." --SevenOfDiamonds 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2

  • Abstain. I said I wasn't going to participate in this, but people keep asking my opinion, so I'm here to make a statement. The reality is that I cannot express an opinion because it will be spun against me either way: if I say the article should be kept, I will be accused of self-promotion, and if I say the article should be deleted, I will be accused of seeking some sort of cover up. I am certainly amused by the number of !votes that are plainly based on the assumption that I want the article deleted, and seriously considered casting a !vote for keep just to see how many people on both sides changed their mind. (So maybe I do want the article kept? Or am I just saying that to encourage delete votes?) I hope I have now sufficiently sown enough confusion about my hidden desires that editors will now be forced to make their decisions and discuss their reasoning on the basis of WP:BIO and other Wikipedia policies rather than lobbying for or against what I want. User:TedFrank 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My own comment is based on how important I think the subject's views are when they are subject to an article here or information about them is contained within an article, I think that is at the heart of our BLP policies, and given THF's not endorsing keep I wont be changing my vote, SqueakBox 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • THF, meet AGF. AGF, meet THF. People's votes here are based on whether they think your real-world handle is notable or not, not on what they think about what you might think about what they may think about what you – or your real world handle – might want. Those who object to the way such dizzying COI games are infecting Wikipedia, I daresay, are probably not joining you in playing them.--G-Dett 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think you can speak for what "people votes ... are based on". In any case it wasn't about the merits of Keep or Delete so I moved them to discussion page. --Tbeatty 08:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I am somewhat puzzled by the existence of this AfD, and some of the "delete" votes and comments. I tend to have a resaonably high bar for notability, but this person clearly meets WP:BIO without much serious argument, both from the article and its sources, and from a cursory examination of media mentions and authorship of widely-read material. While I assume good faith in the nomination, I suspect that a lot of the deletion arguments are based on Wikipedia politics, and that has no place here at all. --MCB 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - A national newspaper and network pundit not notable? There is no reason for an AfD here. --Sodium N4 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject appears notable. --ElKevbo 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - obviously Frank's recorded viewpoints is a bit thin on the ground at the moment because none of the contributing editors really know what's significant to add when it comes of legalese. I'm trying to get WP:LAW involved and any other editors I think would be good at this so we can get some nice content up soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3

  • Keep. "Not the subject of substantial coverage" is patently untrue per cited references, ref 1 being the Wall Street Journal. Dbromage [Talk] 00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the blog drumming up comments for an Op-Ed. He is not the subject of any Wall Street Journal articles. --Tbeatty 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct. I can't find any articles properly about him. He does seem to have written at least three op-eds for the WSJ though. Here are the abstracts: May 31, 2007 'ABITRARY AND UNFAIR' (Commentary by Ted Frank urges Treasury and SEC to urge Supreme Court to keep securities litigation circumscribed by rejecting move to expand liability in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, which centers on accounting fraud at Charter Communications) This one seems to be more important than the others. His article was cited in a Supreme Court amicus brief on the case as an example of the argument See the Conyers and Frank brief in this case. April 25, 2007 PRIME TARGET (Ted Frank commentary defends development of subprime mortgage market because it has made it possible for millions of new homeowners to benefit from new lines of credit; some borrowers have made bad decisions, but markets should be allowed to adjust themselves, as poor judgment drives some bankers out of business; activist trial lawyers' theory that investment banks are liable for damages for alleged fraud through securitization of mortgages is preposterous). October 28, 2006 FOLLOW THE MONEY (Ted Frank Rule of Law column warns against legal tactic of plaintiff attorneys holding legitimate third parties liable for intentional acts of terrorists; friendly fire could end up doing as much financial damage as terrorists themselves, with lawyers getting rich in process; lawsuits would have bankrupted several corporate victims of 9/11 attacks were it not for $7 billion taxpayer-funded bailout of potential plaintiffs). Sorry for dumping this here. I need to go to catch a flight tomorrow. Cool Hand Luke 05:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that people who are typically known for their opinions rarely get stuff written about them, it's usually to, for or against. Christopher Hitchens is a case in point; no-one could doubt his notability but in a thirty year long career he has had very little biographical material acually written about him, he's one of the world's most celebrated polemicists but he has not one book written on him, and as far as I can tell, only a few limited in-depth interviews, usually when he's promoting a book. In thirty years. Ted Frank only finished his education ten years ago. John Simpson is the world's greatest foreign correspondant, but if he hadn't written six volumes of autobiography we should know hardly anything of him whatsoever. Journalists, columnists and polemcists just don't get profiled in a way their wikipediographers would dearly wish they would. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers, too. These professions have a "judge the edits, not the editor" mentality just like Wikipedia. Many prominent lawyers, judges, and legal scholars have almost no biographical material written about them, and people in the profession would consider that to be fluff. Wikidemo 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People notable enough to be in an encyclopedia have articles written about them. This should be an obvious truism. There are plenty of people known within their fields that are not notable enough to warrant a biograpy. For those who aren't and we "judge the edits, not the editor", we wshoul have an article on the edits, not the editors. Hitchens has 5 non-self-published "profiles" written "about" him. Frank has zero. --Tbeatty 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious and not true, certainly not with many lawyers. Another case in point, Marilyn Hall Patel. I haven't fully vetted this but her notability is vastly greater than the amount of sourced biographical information. To rigidly adhere to a standard whereby biographical articles must be written about a person to consider them notable would give disproportionate coverage to celebutantes, local musical groups, television actors, and other people in pop culture, and little coverage to scholars, commentators, lawyers, and others whose notability lies is their words. That would be very unencyclopedic indeed. We don't really have to consider the big picture here, though. The prevailing view seems to be that the subject of the article is clearly notable. Wikidemo 10:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I further add Antonin Scalia. 80% of his article is given over to his views on law and his legal opinions. Should we rename it Opinions of Antonin Scalia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've touched on exactly the point. For people who's notability is in espousing their views, the proper venue is their views, not a made up biography. If they are notable enough to be the subject of biographical works, they deserve an article. This is a fundamental part of NOR and the policies of notability. Antonin Scalia is known for his legal opinions. He is also the subject of biographical works that highlight his legal opinions, thereore Wikipedia reflects that. Ted Frank is not the subject of biographical works. His views deserve mention on the topics he has covered, but not a biography. He is not notable enough for a biography. As for the undue weight of pop culture, there are other notability guidleing as well. This is just the first step and he does not even meet that. --Tbeatty 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-trivial mentions is not the criteria. To be notable as a biography, he should have non-trivial publications about him, not just quotes from him. That is the notability guideline. Since his biography self-published, it is not notable. His views (which are common) and AEI are notable as there are plenty of references about both, but he is not notable as a separate biographical article. --Tbeatty 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't believe the subject has expressed any formal objection to or support of the article; in fact he has noted specifically (above) that he prefers voters to base their decision solely on Wikipedia policy. ATren 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken.--Mantanmoreland 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable figure. Type 40 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is much too much talk about whether he is notable. That so many people have an opinion of him means something re: notability, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.24.130 (talk) 19:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is obviously notable, and the bulk of deletion arguments seem to be wiki-lawyering based around some recent Wikipedia politics. Such arguments should have little or nothing to do with this discussion. Whether you WP:ILIKEIT or not, the subject exceeds WP:N and our biographical guidelines for inclusion. Burntsauce 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frank is a notable lawyer and writer on legal and other matters, satisfying WP:BIO. Edison 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article satisfies the requirements set forth by WP:BIO as a notable attorney and writer on related matters. RFerreira 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. Not very notable and I was leaning towards "Delete" but, based on the discussion, deserves a {{notability|Biographies}} tag, rather than a deletion. Since a decision to delete would trump me anyway, I'm going to be only slightly bold and add the tag amidst the debate. I note that this article may be useful more for what it cites TO then the direct subject, so it deserves a more considered evaluation. --Doug.Talk 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment on my own vote: As a lawyer, I do not consider Ted Frank to be notable - in fact, I'd never heard of him until I saw the request for comments on Project Law's talk page, but then again I don't necessarily follow the tort-reform movement closely and it was interesting to find an article on him and be able to read about his work. Whether he justifies an article is another matter and this article does seem rather extensive for such a person. When you are practicing or writing about law, any lawyer can suddenly be important - if only until the case, the brief, or the journal article is done - but obviously every lawyer who's ever been published a couple times and commented publicly on this or that, can't have her or his own article. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The impression that I get is that Frank is a notable figure in the so-called "tort reform" movement. However, I share your concerns and I think the tag is a good idea.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 4

  • Keep Frank is specifically mentioned in at least three books findable in Google Books, for his role in early 1990s Usenet, which is indeed notable. Two of these books include Michele Tepper's "Usenet communities and the Cultural Politics of Information", which discusses him and various other afu participants. I think this meets your "secondary sources" criteria of notability. (Comment by John Mark Ockerbloom)
  • Delete. The subject is borderline notable, and I'm not happy about the circumstances in which it was created, which seem to include using it as a weapon against him. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment to clarify, from someone who has been involved from early on in this dispute: while it is true that it seemed to have been recreated duing the recent on-Wiki conflict, I do not get the impression that the original re-creator did it in bad faith, or to be used as a weapon. Here is the initial recreation - I see no evidence of bad faith there. This is not intended to influence your vote, I just wanted to clarify. :-) ATren 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Re: "I'm not happy about the circumstances in which it was created, which seem to include using it as a weapon against him", (font color="Purple" SlimVirgin). I don't know enough about this article to vote yet, but I don't understand how an article can be used as a "weapon" if it stays within Wikipedia guidelines. Angelina Wartenberg 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, he's not ultra-famous, but I feel comfortable calling him notable.
    As an aside, whether or not the subject of an article wants the article is completely irrelevant; we're here to build an encyclopedia, not cater to peoples' demands. As I recall, John Seigenthaler, Sr. has requested his article be deleted as well, but that doesn't mean we acquiesce to such requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's sources show that he's notable; yeah, the context of the article's creation, and the Michael Moore business, is messy, but the article itself looks fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the time is over when we can pretend that wikipedia is unimportant, and the major controversies involving it are just in-house squabbles. The test of a mature information service is that it covers things in an objective way even if they involve itself. I think some of the opposition arises from a praiseworthy feeling of not wanting to make ourselves sound too self-important, but when our concerns are the subjects of major outside coverage, and involve articles on people to whom great attention is paid like MM, then they are important and noteworthy. WP, the encyclopedia that doesnt think itself important. DGG (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with DGG's sentiment expressed above. Frank seems notable enough to me (a quick Lexis/Nexis search for Ted Frank and American Enterprise Institute turns up over 70 hits, some are of little substance but others include a Washington Post editorial he wrote and comments he made about Samuel Alito to Market Watch when Alito was nominated to the court) both as a pundit consulted on certain legal matters and a scholar at AEI. The Wikipedia politics surrounding this article and this AfD are, of course, utterly irrelevant but do seem to be swaying some voters. The fact that the article was (re)created after the MM brouhaha has absolutely no bearing on whether this article is a keeper and I'm disturbed that some editors and admins seem to think that it does.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doug I moved your comment so it was after mine rather than the one below, which is where I think you meant to put it (if not my apologies and please feel free to move it back). Your point is well taken and your comments above were measured and helpful. Frank is clearly on the cusp of notability (i.e. looking at WP:BIO doesn't provide a clear answer) and part of my decision to vote keep is simply that I tend to err on the side of inclusion for figures who are fairly prominent in more "substantive" fields like politics, economics, law, etc. (as opposed to minor wrestlers and such). Also the L/N search was for Ted Frank and AEI--a search for just the phrase "Ted Frank" pulls up 375 hits, though many seem to be for a Hollywood exec.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of search did you do? I get 700-odd results in LexisNexis news, all (English), although a slight majority refer to other Ted Franks including the Axentis exec and Hollywood exec. I agree with your sentiments on notability for lawyers, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bigtimepeace, you are correct, I had an edit conflict and merged my comments at the end instead of where they belonged. Thanks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Springeragh may be joking but I think he makes a valid point. It appears to be a marginal case, and I believe that under BLP that the subject of the article has a voice in whether it stays. If he felt it should go, I would favor it going. Since he abstained I vote keep, but weakly.--Mantanmoreland 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would a significant number of readers come to Wikipedia looking for information about this person? Yes, based on the number of times he appears in public media as a pundit. JamesMLane t c 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Rare

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

A google search turns up no reliable sources for this club. It non-notable. No edits made on the page since last September New England Review Me! 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. PeaceNT 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bodkin

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

Only assertion of notability is being related to a suspected serial killer. New England Review Me! 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. @pple 04:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of research companies

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

No clear criteria for inclusion (what exactly constitutes "research services"?), and most of the entries are redlinks. Oli Filth 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep . The sources mentioned by those who commented should be inserted into the article, because it could be renominated for AFD if it stays unsourced. - KrakatoaKatie 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magee of Donegal

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

no assertion of notability. article is unsourced. New England Review Me! 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The 1866 start date can be found [http://www.mageedonegal.com/mageestory.html on the company's website", but "Magee of Donegal" returns just 500 ghits, and the company, despite its long history, seems to be an ordinary nonnotable clothing retailer. Shalom Hello 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing showing that this is a notable clothing shop. i said 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They seem to be referred to frequently just as Magee or as Magee and Co. These articles [63][64] describe them as very well known within Ireland. They also seem to receive some amount of notice in fashion writing, such as in this [65] magazine, but I'm not sure whether these are as notable as other types of coverage. Anyway, there's a number of business articles [66][67][68] relating to their production and profits. Sci girl 04:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More important that their retailing business is their internationally notability of supplying Donegal tweed worldwide. Ghits of "Donegal tweed Magee" gives a more respectable 973. If they are not very notable I wonder why many travel companies advise that some of the best buys in Donegal are tweeds from Magee, and these are not Magee ads. Give it a chance, you just don't know it but in Ireland and with tourists it is very well known and the links above indicate its notability. ww2censor 04:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well-known company in Ireland, with a high name recognition factor, for lack of a better term and it's newsworthy ( with this as an example). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article, and admittedly, it's not brilliant. However, they are the last producers of tweed in Donegal, and as stated above, they are certainly well-known in the tourist literature. I think that adding to the article is preferable to deleting it outright. Pikiwedian 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Slater

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

Article has required cleanup for 3+ months. A google search finds no reliable sources, and page has needed sources since may. 2 of the 3 contributions of this pages author have been to this page. Appears to be a hoax page New England Review Me! 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No Guru 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguish

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

This fictional language is not notable enough as it is only used in Pingu. In a previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinguish the result was merge and redirect to Pingu, but a few months after implementation this was reverted for no apparent reason. Eldar 01:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local C compiler

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

Prodded by Whispering. The reason given was "Article gives no indication of notability or verifiability with multiple independent reliable sources." - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To be frank, I think Wikipedia's been far too aggressive lately. I understand wanting have high standards and all that, but I don't think that has to mean kicking out everything that doesn't already come loaded with sources or fair use rationales or whatever the reason is for a given thing. I think common sense should prevail. Common sense tells me that this may well be a notable compiler, particularly considering the Quake 3 integration. We need to give this article the time of day, at least, whatever its current deficiencies. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like it could have been tagged and dated for lacking notability, opposed to just prodded. --Emesee 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source. There are plenty of articles in the literature that discuss this compiler. Jakew 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jakew. Should be easy adding sources as this is quite notable. --Allefant 10:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, all the references call it "lcc", not "local" or "little" C compiler, so I moved it. And I think, the article has some potential (mention this license, possible other users of lcc (seems you can also use it to produce executables from standard C sources), lcc's architecture, ...) - maybe I'll get around to do some research if it's kept (the book and papers in google scholar are hard to access, but normal google also has like half a million hits for lcc compiler). --Allefant 12:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefoxx

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

Non-notable girl group who don't come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. There isn't even an Allmusic entry for them. Please don't confuse attempted hype with notability. They have no released albums, no national tours, no record label, no apparent chart success. WebHamster 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This group won a UK-wide Unsigned Music Contest run by British Telecom, which satisfies section 9 of WP:MUSIC guidelines. A Google search brings up articles featured in both local and national press, showing they also satisfy section 1. Although not stated on the wiki entry, the group have been the subject of a documentary and playlisted by the youth-focused national radio station, Capital Disney - satisfying sections 11 & 12. An inspection of their MySpace page lists 40+ live performances across the country. The song writers and manager are of particular interest to the pop music consuming public. There's unlikely to be an AllMusic entry as yet, as the group are unsigned. My reason for creating this article reflects the interest and enthusiasm I've seen for this new pop group, working as I do, in youth media. PopMusicLover 02:48, 26 August 2007
  • Comment - my Google search for "BT Broadband Search For Talent" comes up with 4 hits, the BT Digital Music Awards website doesn't seem to know anything about Stonefoxx, in any case the results aren't scheduled to be announced until Aug 31st. The touring referred to in the article and listed on their MySpace page proves to be not so much a tour but doing the odd guest spot at other artist's gigs, no doubt doing one or two songs then going to the back stage party. The Sun article referred to on the article barely refers to the band, its focus is on the Sugababes member and a vague reference to the competition. Not what I'd call a full length or in-depth feature. References 1 and 4 are basically the same story from the same newspaper with a different telling. All of these things are about PR and marketing, there's nothing at all that could be used as true evidence of notability. As far as I can figure out about the competition it's a send in an MP3 and we'll judge it sort of thing rather than a full blown audition type competition. I can't find too much info on the actual competition which is possibly an indicator of its importance in the scheme of things. WebHamster 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments for deletion are not put forward particularly strongly, and the consensus here seems to be to keep these lists (although many of the "keeps" are also poor, and are defending the existence of Taiwanese Americans, rather than this list. Lists and categories are not the same thing; both have a use. Neil ム 11:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Taiwanese Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, Cambodian Americans

List of Taiwanese Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Hmong Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Laotian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cambodian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another unusual list of nationality-nationality. Although I'm sure Taiwanese Chinese are different than mainland Chinese (Cantonese correct?), and definitely have separate cultures, I don't believe a Taiwanese-American is truely anymore notable than a Castillian-American (as in the Spanish region). Different regions of different countries have separate dialects and cultures too. I don't see the need or importance of making a -American list for each. Also for reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans, etc. For very similar reasons, I'm also nominating most South Asian lists.Bulldog123 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hardly radical. No other wikipedia (German, Polish, Italian, French, Chinese) seems to feel the need to make Ethnicity-American lists. We have categories. It's enough. Bulldog123 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read these articles. Many of these people do not have articles of their own; thus categories do not work. This is the ONLY place in WP that this information is available for these relatively small US ethnic minorities; it is a place where editors can find ideas to create articles on these individuals. Also, no argument is presented for the Loatian, Cambodian and Hmong article deletions, so the their nominations should be voided. Hmains 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by now they still don't have articles, that should say something. They're either COI links, or they're not notable for their Taiwanese-American-ness but for their professions. In which case, they should be placed in the relevant occupation list. Bulldog123 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it 'says' is that these list articles are evolving as more people are added all the time and, in due course, more bio articles will be created as these people rise in their professions and achievements. This whole campaign seems just like another denial effort--an effort to deny that we have ethnic Americans in our US society. Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because categories contain people what already have bio articles, not those who do not yet have them. This is one prime reason that lists are useful. Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, these are significantly different groups who have a strong American presence. At least in the case of Hmong people, it is an ethnicity and not a national designation(i.e. the "Belgian/English" rational for deletion does not apply). As for the notability requirement of items in a list, it is in dispute across several guidelines. For sure, there is no requirement that each item in a list have its own article. See for example: from WP:SAL "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Perhaps there are other reasons for deletion, but the argument supplied above is unconvincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nposs (talk • contribs) 05:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per non-notable intersection of races. Did their ethnicity/parents' nationality have anything to do with them achieving notability? Even then, I'd say categorize Corpx 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's with the vendetta against lists of ethnic notables? I'm tired of seeing yet another list like this in AfD every month. Wl219 05:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All And I don't get the idea of nominating four articles about Asian-American groups in one nomination. They don't "all look alike"... The Taiwanese-American article is somewhat sourced. The Hmong, Laotian and Cambodian articles have a problem with lack of cites. All four are vague on details... naturalized citizen, person with one or more ancestors from another country, etc., and without much detail, a category would be more appropriate. The model for such articles, unless Wikipedia outlaws all such articles, should be List of German-Americans. Mandsford 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss at Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This what categories are for.----DarkTea© 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then when we get to the categories, are these the same editors who argue that the ethnic categories should be be deleted as lists are better? Hmains 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and only what is of personal value or interest to you is suitable for inclusion?DGG (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. English americans, taiwanese americans or american englishs, american tiwanese looks grammatically incorrect. Maybe "List of Americans with English ethnicity" or something of sort would be nice. Lara_bran 04:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "Taiwanese American" is overwhelmingly the common name in both popular and academic contexts. I agree that this "Fooian American" naming pattern shouldn't be used any more than it has to be, and definitely shouldn't be used to invent Wikipedia names for minority groups outside of the US (e.g. names like "Chinese French", which aren't used by any reliable sources). But within the US, it's a strong and widely-accepted convention that goes back for about a century. cab 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is specific to US, since most of US population is migrated population. But for world wide view, new name would be nice. Let there be redirect for American people. When and if we use it reverse, like American Taiwanese then it may cause confusion. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because of systemic bias concerns these lists are helpful to a encyclopedia reader yuckfoo 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all the "Keeps" above. Tony the Marine 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These ethnic demographics are notable as they are used by the U.S. Census. Additionally, they do not act as a directory (per WP:NOT) because they are not lists that offer contact information or other consumer-related information. They are also not indiscriminant lists as they offer information about the people listed and why they are notable. Furthermore, whether or not a similar list for a demographic like Castillian-Americans exists should have no bearing on whether or not we should keep these lists, because it may just be that a list of Castillian-Americans is not notable while these other lists are. They need to be examined on their own merits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to List of Americans by ethnicity, since these currently suffer by lack of ref and content. This is derived from my comment of rename above. This new title would be easy for world citizen to understand. Lara_bran 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nonsense article from indefblocked user. ELIMINATORJR 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler 20

Tyler 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no proof this TV show actually exists, which would fall under WP:HOAX, and if it does exist, then it is all unreferenced speculation under WP:CRYSTAL. And there's even some WP:ADVERT in there too. The trifecta! Ravenmasterq 00:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - does not pass WP:NEO. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puck bunny

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

Being an avid ice hockey fan, I can truthfully say that I have never heard of the term "puck bunny," "puckslut," or "puckf%#&" in all my years of following the sport. Plus, this article only contains one minor reference (which, by the way, is called the myth of the puck bunny). Delete as non-notable. P.B. Pilhet 00:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I recognize that Wikipedia is not censored. However, I personally do not believe in either speaking or typing profanity (and puckf%#& is pretty gross profanity, too) unless absolutely necessary. Those censorship guidelines do not apply to censoring yourself, just other editor's comments or articles that require obscenity (such as the article about the F word). -- P.B. Pilhet 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, as the person who originally created the article, Never29, claims to be from Australia. Also, ice hockey is (from what I hear) not very popular in the United Kingdom. -- P.B. Pilhet 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely not a British neologism, the sport is very very small over here. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I ask is that the source provided in the article appears to be from the UK. I know ice hockey is a very minor sport there, which compounds the difficulty in deciding whether or not this is a legitimate term. faithless (speak) 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wait, we have an academic source using the term (albeit from the UK where ice hockey is as welcome as cold beer)? There are other sources apparently although I confess never having heard the term myself. According to this the term is in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move to Wiktionary. I'm actually pretty surprised that an avid hockey fan has never heard the term "puckbunny". The problem with this article is that "puckbunny" is usually spelled as one word, not two. Googling "puckbunny" turns up around 10,000 hits. "Puckbunny" is definitely a known and used hockey term. It's just not something that evolves and has a lot of source material written on it. It needs to be in wiktionary as a definition...maybe a little bit posted to groupies, but definitely not its own article Smashville 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - it already exists on Wiktionary, but I stand by the delete. This is never going to be more than a definition. Smashville 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been the topic of 2 "academic" studies, although both by militant feminists. Has documented usage on google new for a 10 year period which puts it past neologism. It meets notability, although it needs better sources. They are however, available.Horrorshowj 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Opinion in Immunology

Current Opinion in Immunology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy as blatant advertising, tag removed by a user who disagreed. While it might not be blatant advertising, seems clearly spam. CitiCat ♫ 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not propose this for deletion on notability grounds, but because what was written there was only advertising. CitiCat ♫ 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close The article has been redirected to a more appropriate page for all the Current Opinion journals. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geo Swan 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't share nominator's concern that this article was, originally, advertizing.
    • I am concerned over the redirection during the middle of the {{afd}} discussion.
      • I don't agree with the redirection to section, in general. One of the most powerful features that differentiates the wikipedia from the plain old world-wide web is that it provides bidirectional linking. Hyperlinks on the world-wide web are unidirectional. There is no real equivalent to the wikipedia's very powerful "what links here". Unfortunately, as currently implemented, the wikipedia doesn't really support linking at any finer scale than at the article to article level. Redirection to section is basically broken, and IMO, should be deprecated.
      • In this particular instance I think the redirection muddied what we are debating here. Sorry User:Carcharoth, I am sure your considerable efforts were well-meant, but I think it would have been better for you to have waited until after the discussion here was concluded. Geo Swan 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reverted the redirect as the article is still at AfD and by redirecting you were removing the AfD notice. Computerjoe's talk 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, let's go back to the beginning. There's not an argument at this point concerning notability - if someone were to write a good stub, or if the decision is to redirect, that would supercede my nomination. The article as it stands now is COI (the author is named COIM and has no other edits) and is definitely ad-like in tone. It should either be rewritten from scratch or deleted and left as a redlink for later rewriting. CitiCat ♫ 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's not that much more onerous to have the redirect undone while the AfD proceeds. Though I do think that when AfD "process for the sake of process" gets in the way of editing, it shows that something is wrong with the AfD nomination. In this case, all 10 redirects should have been nominated, but as the other nine are redirects it would be disruptive to undo the redirects merely to nominate at AfD. What could be done is to leave all 10 redirects in place, and put the AfD notice on the Current Opinion article, and invite discussion on whether the redirects should be deleted and then recreated. But this could all be discussed and resolved at Talk:Current Opinion. AfD (or the nominator) should not be afraid to swiftly close discussions that are more appropriate at other venues. My opinion is that the AfD should be closed to allow discussion to continue at Talk:Current Opinion, as it is obvious permanent deletion is not appropriate. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 - in response to Geo Swan: "I am concerned over the redirection during the middle of the {{afd}} discussion." - redirection can be done and undone like any other edit. I was in the process of merging a group of ten articles, and noticed one that had been nominated at AfD. Performing all the merges made more sense than leaving one not done. What I should have done, is move the AfD notice to the main article to allow the AfD discussion and notice to "follow the redirect". I haven't seen anyone do this sort of thing before, but that is more likely to be because no-one has thought of doing things this way before. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 - in response to Geo Swan: "Unfortunately, as currently implemented, the wikipedia doesn't really support linking at any finer scale than at the article to article level. Redirection to section is basically broken, and IMO, should be deprecated." - I respectfully disagree with this. Why do you think redirection to section is broken? The most common complaints are, or were, the following: (1) "Redirects to sections don't work!" - well, they do now, as the developers made anchor links (#links) work several months ago. (2) "What happens if the name of a section changes?" The section header should have a permamnent "span id" tag for the anchor links to follow. That way, the section name can be changed and it won't affect the anchored redirects. (3) "But we can't categorise the sections!" Sure you can. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, and categorize the redirect to section to make a section appear in a category. Carcharoth 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - oh, and also have a look at Category:Current Opinion journals and compare with Category:Trends journals, noting that the redirects are also in 'topic' categories (eg. Trends in Molecular Medicine appears in Category:Medical journals). It may well be that these redirects should be their own articles. But the decision AfD makes is whether the journals are notable or not. The decision on whether to have the information in a list or in separate articles, is an editorial decision, not a decision for AfD. Carcharoth 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over: You bet your butt it's blatant advertising. The journal is not "new" (started in 1988 makes it 19 years old, which makes it older than most Wikipedians), and it's not shady. Elsevier is august, distinguished, etc., and the journal is fine. We should have an article on the journal, and we shouldn't preserve this nearly copyvio text that is a flat out blurb from the advertising. Yes, I am saying that this should be deleted, and then someone with some experience and ideas about articles should just flat out write an article. We should not be rewarding people for slapping ad copy onto Wikipedia. Geogre 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand improve, which is easy enough to do. I've done it for other journals. CI is no cause for delete. it does make for poor quality articles--in this case, not as much for what they inserted, which is meaningless PR garbage, as that they did not bother to include the stuff that makes the journal important, like its phenomenally high impact fact, its very widespread library holdings, its universal use in the subject. If we deleted for COI, we'd lose half of WP, including much of he good stuff--its a reason to watch carefully and edit strictly, not to delete. These should have been edited long ago.
As for section vs. independent articles, it's a matter of convenience. There are a few thousand important peer-reviewed journals to add, and it is often simpler to add them in group articles, for expansion later. In this case, I have nothing against a group article. But we can decide that separately.
By the way, i totally disagree with the statement that everything this company publishes is notable or worthwhile. I'll be glad to provide examples of the many ones they do that are negligible--many of them aren't even in Web of Science/Journal Citation Reports, which i regard as a rough screen. Most large publishers publish some junk--I completely disagree with importance by attribution without considering the individual items. For these particular guy, I'd guess about 9/10 are OK, but i see no reason to give them a free ride on the remaining ones.
Let me declare some COI of my own. On the one hand I have published and posted some material very critical of the company's editorial and business practices for various products. On the other hand, we remain on good business arms-length terms, and they extend to me the same access they do to other reviewers. DGG (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, just one of many review journals from this publisher - they're not even peer reviewed journals nor do they accept independent submissions. --Peta 12:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment few review journals are peer reviewed in the ordinary sense that applies to primary research journals, nor need they be, because the accuracy of the science is not at stake. Rather, they are edited by the editor and his editorial board, who often do make use of outside reviewers as advisors. And almost none accept external submissions, but only by invitation or prior inquiry--the amount of work is so great that nobody would really want to write one on speculation--especially as it is not obligatory, as writing up the result of a research project is. Rather, it is considered an honor, and represents acknowledgment that one is a sufficient authority to be trusted to summarize and evaluate the work in a field. (and that's why we favor such review articles as sources for WP articles). DGG (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Altos Church of the Nazarene

Los Altos Church of the Nazarene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy for A7 (no notability). Procedural nomination, I'm neutral at this time. CitiCat ♫ 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of nonprofits including charities are deleted as spam, there is no exception for "spam in a good cause." (apologies if that's not what you meant) CitiCat ♫ 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Maxamegalon2000 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement (Second) of Contracts

Restatement (Second) of Contracts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be the only Restatement of the Law with its own article. I don't see what makes it any more notable than the rest, or what makes the rest notable enough to have articles as well. Maxamegalon2000 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article links back to Restatement of the Law where there are 21 red links. I guess that they are all as notable as each other. I surmise that the intention of the authors was to create 22 individual articles for each of these individual restatements, and this was the only one they started before they ran out of steam. Googling "Restatement of the Law Second of Contracts" returned 2,400,000 odd hits without the quotation marks and some 28 hits with. I'm no lawyer so I don't know how important those 28 hits are. It doesn't help that the WikiProjectLaw assesment box is blank. The best thing I guess is to put something on WikiProjectLaw's talk page both as a curtesy and as a request for imformation as to how notable this topic is.KTo288 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably all of the restatements are notable enough. I think this is not as influential as the Restatements of Tort, but it's still widely cited. These restatements are made with massive scholarly input, and some sections of them become the de facto rule of law in some common law jurisdictions. Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, each Restatement is a notable topic in American law, about which enough could be said to fill an article on how it was organized and written, and what significant changes and concepts it introduced or enshrined. See Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition for an example of how a single edition of a reissued reference publication can constitute a stand-alone topic. However, given the current minimal state of this article, there's no point to this existing separately from Restatement of the Law until it is expanded. As with all such subtopics, it would have been a far better use of the nominator's time to simply merge and redirect rather than listing it for deletion. Postdlf 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Each Restatement is notable even if they are currently redlinked. Restatement of Contracts especially so. Can be easily expanded with minimal sourcing. Any first-year law student can probably rewrite the article. Wl219 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Strong keep: The treatise to which this article refers is one of the most well-recognized and frequently-cited in all of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Every first year law student in every ABA-accredited law school in the United States is familiar with it, and it is probably the most-cited non-binding authority in all of U.S. case law. It is a work without peer in terms of overall influence and recognition among the bar and bench, with the possible exception of the Restatement of Torts. It is prepared by the American Law Institute. dr.ef.tymac 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Restatement of the Law based on the current content of the article, which is minimal. If the article received a rewrite which specifically explained the Restatement's influence, I might reconsider. By the way, the best way to Google this topic would be as "restatement second of contracts", which yields 72,600 hits by my count. --Metropolitan90 07:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the response of those with a knowledge of the topic has established this articles notability, so a nomination for deletion based on notabilty has no grounds. Yes the article as it stands needs work but it would be better to tag the article as in need of improvement and put a request on the WikiProjectLaw talk page asking for those interested in this topic and the other 21 redlinks to help expand the article. Thanks to all from WikiProjectLaw who anwsered my earlier request for enlightenment.KTo288 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dreftymac. · jersyko talk 13:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This Restatement is one of the most-cited of all the Restatements, it is an authoritative source of law. I expect that the article will continue to grow. Terry Carroll 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a Tintin album

Over-reaching translation from the French wikipedia. Entirely inappropriate in details level, and closer to a How-to. Circeus 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of blogging terms

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

Listcruft. Lots of uncommon blogs and I doubt this is encyclopedic. Disclaimer: I am a blogger Computerjoe's talk 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep: per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, the fact that the references section of this article establishes that the film has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" implies that the film is notable. The only arguments for deletion presented concerned claims that the film is non-notable, and the assertion that conspiracy theories (even if notable per Wikipedia:Notability) are not properly the subject of Wikipedia articles. The latter argument is rejected as having no basis in Wikipedia policies or practices. Furthermore, a strong supermajority of established users favored retention of the article. John254 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie

The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First deletion reason: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria, namely: (1) the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics; (2) the film is not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii) The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; (iv) The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema; (3) the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking; (4) the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive; and (5) the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Further, there are zero mentions of the film in a Google News Search, and in an ordinary Google search, yields 16 pages of results to blogosphere articles, none of which are to a reliable source.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Per Tom's suggestion below, I basically re-wrote the entire article (except the "resume" section--I don't know why it has that title--which needs to be entirely reworked by someone familiar with the film), which was actually kind of interesting considering I knew nothing about this topic before. Using Lexis/Nexis I added over 20 sources from 8 or 9 mainstream news publications and discussed various screenings of the film--and the controversies surrounding them--as well as reaction from reviewers, the US and UK governments, and family members of victims of the bombing. I tried to do this in an extremely NPOV manner--personally I have no opinion about this film as I've never seen it--and think I did okay with that, but please feel free to improve on what's there now. I also added to the intro to reflect changes in the body and deleted a section on South Africa. I think the article now undeniably passes the notability criteria, and will again ask that Morton consider withdrawing the nomination since the facts have changed since his nomination and since that will save us all some time. If a couple of people want to read over what I've done and work on it further that would be great since this was such a massive change (I made the same suggestion on the article talk page). In particular, you'll note that footnotes 10 and 20 (as well as 12 and 21 and 7 and 23) are to the same articles. I don't know how to do the ref formatting such that you get that those little a's and b's next to footnotes that allow you to list the original source only once so if someone can fix that (or tell me how to) it would be appreciated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Here's some more from Lexis/Nexis so we can be done with this, I again suggest that delete voters and the nom reconsider their positions. From the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), May 16, 1995, article title "Lockerbie disaster: TV film claims a cover-up." Article makes reference to the fact that "Since the documentary, The Maltese Double Cross, went to air in Britain last week, US and British authorities have attempted to discredit four key witnesses interviewed in the film" and includes a statement from the US government (how often does the US government comment on films?). From The Independent (London), November 11, 1994, article title "Festival cancels Lockerbie film." Article notes "A controversial film about the Lockerbie bombing, due to have its premiere at the London Film Festival, has been withdrawn by the festival's organisers under threat of a libel action by a retired US intelligence agent." London Film Festival made an official comment about withdrawing the film. From The Times, November 12, 1994, "MPs to see Lockerbie film in the Commons" (self-explanatory title, and article could be used to sort this statement in the article about the screening for MPs). A (negative) review by Stuart Jeffries appeared in the May 12, 1995 issue of The Guardian newspaper. It was also reviewed by Barry Oliver in The Australian on May 16, 1995. More recently, well known journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, in a September 15, 2006 column in The Guardian referred to this and Francovich's other films as "extraordinary" and said it "destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988." Are we done here now, or does anyone want more sources that prove this film is notable and this entire AfD ill-advised? Because these are just the first few things I found on a Lexis/Nexis search. Lexis/Nexis is good for this kind of thing--finding sources for stuff that was news awhile ago but is not anymore--and it shows why a lack of Google News hits means nothing. If Morton does not want to withdraw his nom and/or delete voters don't want to change their votes in the face of this evidence and the festival prize, I would surely like to know why.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to add some of these references so we can see what the resulting article looks like. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this now--already added in a bunch of stuff--and will post a note at the top here when I'm done.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Tom Harrison Talk 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel and the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Film won first prize for documentary at Edinburgh Film Festival, "the longest continually running film festival in the world" according to the Wiki article. The film thus passes the third criterion for notable films mentioned by Morton. Google News hits are, of course, irrelevant, particularly for a film released in 1994. 220 Lexis/Nexis hits obviously helps to establish notability and is far more important. The article obviously needs to be sourced better--and apparently can--and information like the film festival award should be included. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete this though, and neither is the fact that this film advocates a conspiracy theory. Morton should re-consider his nomination, since Gamaliel has shown the film fulfills what Wikipedia:Notability (films) calls a "secondary" criterion ("Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion").--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You really need a better rationale than that. If your argument was a sufficient one to AfD articles on movies, we would also have to delete the article on Oliver Stone's JFK. I know nothing about this Lockerbie movie but it cannot possibly advocate a conspiracy theory more ridiculous than the one Stone described in his film. Delete voters should at least engage with the argument that this film does meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) since that seems to be the real question. Simply saying "conspiracy nonsense" and "cruft" is not going to win the day here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate TDC? Given the information provided in the AfD (multiple news articles, a prize at a film festival) and standards for notable films why specifically do you think this fails notability?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Aloud fourth studio album

Girls Aloud fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After cutting the crap out of the article, it's reduced to a pitiful one line stub. Please, put it out of its misery. Will (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Wireless Architecture

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

No Context, no original content, no links, no categories, orphan Ozhiker 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_26&oldid=153840087"