Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:02, 25 August 2007

< August 24	August 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Template:Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Allman

Reads very much like a self-promotional piece. The article was proposed for deletion in April 2006. No substantial change since. The name registers under 50 non-wikipedia Ghits and the stated status of "influential writer" is not supported by reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads pretty much like a resumé, though real notabilty doesn't seem probable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Academic Challenger 01:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is unquestionably a claim put forth that he is/was of some importance. I'm concerned however that as it stands the article is completely unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sweeping claims, no sources (and no substantiating sources found in Google Books or Google News Archive). Plenty of "influential" music writers exist, with documentation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Allman

Reads very much like a self-promotional piece. The article was proposed for deletion in April 2006. No substantial change since. The name registers under 50 non-wikipedia Ghits and the stated status of "influential writer" is not supported by reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads pretty much like a resumé, though real notabilty doesn't seem probable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Academic Challenger 01:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is unquestionably a claim put forth that he is/was of some importance. I'm concerned however that as it stands the article is completely unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sweeping claims, no sources (and no substantiating sources found in Google Books or Google News Archive). Plenty of "influential" music writers exist, with documentation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Ghassemi

Has been tagged as an unreferenced orphan with questionable notability for many months with little or no change. This may need to be kept but hopefully the AfD will be a good occasion to check the claims of notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 19,900 ghits. His interview is all over the internet [1] and has even been translated [2]. I don't know a lot about this subject, but it seems notable to me. -Flubeca^Talk 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there isn't much to differentiate himself from most journalists. The article itself needs alot of work Sasha Callahan 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iran is a large country; its independent press is of wide interest and the subject appears to be one of the better known figures in it. Itsmejudith 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in a few sources, including The Economist. Wish it wasn't an orphan, but that shouldn't get the article deleted. Cmprince 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all his google hits are for a single interview that has been syndicated (and the estimate of 19000 hits is way over the top. There's no evidence of his commanding widespread respect as a journalist or even being known. Deb 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This may be the first patient for my new WP:ICU concept. Realkyhick 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 699 GHits in Persian [3], once you subtract out Blogfa (popular Iranian blog site). My reading skills aren't exactly top of the class, but my cursory scan shows that many of these are articles written by him or interviews conducted by him (rather than interviews/articles of which he was the subject), which doesn't do much to establish notability. Similar comment applies to the interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh: a byline does not contribute to notability. cab 04:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to emergency room for immediate intensive care. :-) Does seem notable, per the above. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 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 11:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inventionism

This article is about a recently invented religion or parody religion. There are no sources, and it seems to me that it's probably unverifiable. P4k 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion of notability (or even of having been heard of anywhere). Factoid: after the first prod, one editor remarked in an edit summary: "Inventionism is a rather notable theory/religion in the Metro Detroit area. In fact my college roomate has been interested in it for about a year"... --Goochelaar 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense/spam Jtrainor 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't quite meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see where this is going. It looks too well thought out to be worthless. I think nonsense is a little harsh as well. Gregbard 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, something like "I like it" is not a reason to keep an article: it must be about a "notable" subject, that is something or someone that is known, written about in third-part sources etc. We Wikipedians are not here to judge on the merits of new religions/theories/ways to peel potatoes. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointing to something and calling it nonsense doesn't make it nonsense either does it? BTW, I never said I liked it. Gregbard 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the nonsense is quite sound (but there are exceptions even there): anyway, I only referred to the objective criterion of the lack of sources. For all we know, the contents of the article might even have been invented while it was being written. Happy editing, Goochelaar 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Check out the referenced webpage and you will read 'Matthew Lowery and Devin Jenkins (two eighteen year olds from Detroit, Michigan) introduced the theory in early 2007'. It is a remarkable effort, but fails notability criteria. Anarchia 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article has only one reference, to an individual blog. Currently, the concept of inventionism is clearly original research, and original invention. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is crystal clear: "If you invent ... it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." In addition, the article is advocacy. So far, the subject clearly fails Wikipedia's these criteria. If the bloggers are able to attract enough interest to have multiple notable sources discuss their new philosophy, at that time it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. VisitorTalk 02:06, 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 both.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular Authentication Token

Article is advertising for a product, not encyclopedic content. Article contains several false claims about the products security and when and who invented it. (See my comment about it at the articles talkpage.) Article has been deleted twice before, one "proposed deletion" and one "speedy delete". David Göthberg 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that they made an article about their company too. So I just put that up for deletion too. --David Göthberg 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, of course. --Goochelaar 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds about right. Salvatore22 22:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but the creator of the article just removed the "Article for deletion" tag. (See this diff.) --David Göthberg 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete A category of one-time-password technology of public interest — TELCOSEC-Mark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Moreover, as of now the only other edit by TELCOSEC-Mark is to revert to a deleted edit by STLMatt, the originator of this CAT article, in One-time password, suggesting sock puppetry. --Goochelaar 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as continued spamming. Montco 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as on-time-notability has now passed.--Gavin Collins 12:23, 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 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in the Media

Contested prod. Tagged for speedy deletion with rationale

"A7 vague unverified and inadequate notability claim; IP editors have been removing maintenance / prod tags with no change to the article and no reasoning stated (probably COI-spam)"

Not a speedy candidate given the contested prod but I agree with the above. Pascal.Tesson 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not about Willard Scott or Pat Robertson. It's a couple of sentences about an Australian company, called "Christians in the Media", that produces a TV show on an Australian cable channel, and the author apparently believes that the company is more worthy of an article than the TV show. Mandsford 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any support for notability.MarkinBoston 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sydney Anglicans or delete per the advice in WP:ORG: Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. I added national radio and press coverage, but the subject doesn't yet justify an article of its own. Also, pace Mandsford it's a church, not a company. Seektruthfromfacts 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can't see enough independent sourcing to support an article on the church/ministry (it appears to be part both), but there is enough sourcing to support content in the article for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (which is where Sydney Anglicans redirects). GRBerry 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content, no evidence of notability.--Sefringle^Talk 04:51, 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 Merge with Unniarcha. I just found out that there's an article titled "Unniarcha", so I'm taking liberty to merge this with Unniarcha. utcursch | talk 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unniyarcha

No context. While "Unniyarcha" is a notable Malayalam legend and ballad, it is unclear whether this article is meant to be about that or a film or stage portrayal of same name. The two cast member names don't line up with the 1961 film. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Notability, Reliable Sources, Verifiability. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the legend/figure is notable, there's grounds for an article (if I'm not mistaken, even minor folkloric figures can get their own articles, right?). The cast member listing does make it very confusing, but I believe the rest of the article makes it clear enough that it is referring to the legend. Although the context provided isn't very thorough, it still establishes what the article is about. Also, take note that the original article made no mention of any cast, this was added by another user. I would recommend simply removing that portion of the article. I don’t think verifiability is going to be a problem, and assuming that the legend is at least fairly notable (and it seems that it is), I’m sure that the appropriate sources are both existent, and easily accessible. Calgary 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fairly sure that Unniyarcha is a rather notable character, and that the legend surrounding her is as notable. (Unfortunately, I don't personally have the sources to back up this claim.) There is a film adaptation of the story by the same name, as noted by Askari Mark. I'm under the impression that the creator of this article meant to write about the film adaptation. Or perhaps he meant to write about the original legend and the adaptation (kind of like Chemmeen). He probably just didn't remember who the actors were; he just remembered that it was an old movie and probably concluded from this that the actors who performed in it were the "old" actors. --Kuaichik 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added some sources, and a Google search indicates that the legend is notable. utcursch | talk 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If utcursch or someone is willing to take the article under their wing and develop it further, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD. As I said, the subject of Unniyarcha is notable; what's unclear is whether this article was supposed to be about the legend or a film or theatrical production. Utcursch's recent changes indicate a preference for developing the article along a clear path (the legend) and I have no problem with that. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know much about the legend, since I am not a Malayali. But, this seems notable, and I'll try to find some sources and make the article better. utcursch | talk 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a crappy article, but the subject is notable. Also looks like this AFD is helping to improve it --Xorkl000 20:48, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pong project

Dictionary definition, neologism, no sources, unlikely to be anything more. Transwiki to Wiktionary? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO, no sources to show any use. The only thing Google's first 30 hits came up with is UrbanDictionary (and, of course, variations on the game Pong). Don't transwiki without sources. --Huon 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Huon. --Moonriddengirl 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a neogolism or Dilbertism per h i s.Article appears to be a WP:POV fork from Project management. --Gavin Collins 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't seem to find any other information on this. Izzy007 Talk 00:08, 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. --Core desat 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hostway

I'm not convinced the company is notable, distinct lack of sources which demonstrate notability or verify content. Prod was removed without any reason for the article not being deleted. Nick 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article just needs a bit of a clean up with a few verificable sources, and then it'll be OK. Davnel03 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to delete. They may not be Coca Cola or AT&T, but they are a multinational, and seeing that quite few people have edited, there is interest in the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.120.164 (talk) 20:51, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The references provided are a very brief report about a survey they conducted, which verifies none of the article content; and a human-interest style profile of the CEO, which doesn't verify much of the article's content, and seems to be an un-analytic repetition of material provided by an insider. This may yet be a notable business, but Internet-based businesses probably need sharper scrutiny than hard goods businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve article. This business is notable, but the article is poor. A few additional URLs that help indicate its notability:

Hostway holds sway over a new domain - 2004 article in Crain's Chicago Business

Hostway Acquires Affinity Internet - 2007 merger makes Hostway one of the world's 30 largest hosting providers. Also see report on midwestbusiness.com

Hostway Server Migration Leaves Clients in the Dark -- EWeek article says that this is one the world's largest hosting companies; describes the disruptions that occurred in the Internet a few weeks ago when Hostway's server move went badly.

Review of Hostway in ecommerce-guide.com and professional review of Hostway on CNET

Frost & Sullivan presents award to Hostway

--orlady 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, top-tier international webhosting vendor. 860 Google News Archive results, even Google Books results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 17:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Keep According to Hoovers.com they do over $16M in revenue annually and provide services to more than 600,000 customers including Disney and Coca-Cola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.62.67 (talk) 20:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep, appears to pass WP:CORP. Italia^vivi 19:50, 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. --Core desat 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travelaire

Non-notable company. Speedy (db-corp) was reverse per request for time to improve. Article was cleaned of copyvio and spam text, but fails to provide an assertion of notability. References requested but not provided. Fails WP:CORP. Evb-wiki 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't locate any third party sources to satisfy verifiability. --Moonriddengirl 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. They seem to be a fairly well established manufacturer of hard goods. As such it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with at least a few reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See its talk page, where some sourcing for WP:N is provided ([4], [5]). This AfD is a classic example of WP:BITE (intentional or not) by User:Evb-wiki. Wl219 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage is found from reliable sources. Both the links above give what I'd characterize as trivial coverage. Also, please comment on the AFD, not the nominator Corpx 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno significant coverage is mentioned anywhere in the article, but if some is presented I will reverse my position. The assertion of notability is partially based on the fact that Airstream (a rival of the company in question) has a page. I suggest you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Sasha Callahan 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.rvmechanic.com/rate_your_rv_results.html?rv_make=Travelaire for example. It is a major force in the RV market in Western Canada, am currently working on locating links but since it is something commonly sold in classified adds i am getting nothing but those returned on my searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgal (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humagade

Non-notable company. Speedy tag (db-empty) was removed with added info, including a weak assertion of notability. References requested but not provided. Fails WP:CORP. Evb-wiki 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless additional sourcing is provided for claims of notability. I added a few external links about the company, but could not locate support for its major claims to notability, including the claim of national recognition as Best New Enterprise of 2003 Interactive Multimedia. --Moonriddengirl 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this business is notable, the current ad-speak prose style of the article:

. . . the talent at Humagade opened their doors in late 2002 in an effort to create a world-class development company that still worked like a small, boutique studio in its attention to detail, budget and deadlines.

is so irremediably bad that purging this version from the history is justified. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:29, 25 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. --Core desat 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture

Non-notable trivial mentions aren't a useful or encyclopedic article. RobJ1981 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of passing mentions or references is not enough to constitute a decent "in popular culture" article. The contents listed are not based significantly on the main subject, but are instead trivial references and allusions. Calgary 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because these references show the extent of influence and notability of the contest. Perhaps revising it in a manner that better explains the value of the article and that has more text than just a list would help, as well a reference section for each item. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's interesting, but trivial, and unencyclopedic. Should an encyclopedia contain lists of references to things in popular culture? It's information, which can be interesting, but it may violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not telling us anything about the Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture, but just listing examples. What's next, Popular culture in popular culture? --Huon 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Eurovision Song Contest is popular culture, so this is already absurd. MarkinBoston 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I normally try to defend these pop-culture pages, but I'm afraid I can't see anything to defend here. MarkinBoston is right to say that the subject is already a pop-culture phenomenon, so a pop-culture fork of it is pretty absurd. No vote from me, but surely the creators or anyone with a desire to defend this page can merge anything useful into the main article before this closes? AndyJones 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial mentions that violate WP:NOT#TRIVIA. --Eyrian 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete since it's pretty much a list of the form "In [film], [character] says "Eurovision"", which really isn't particularly encyclopedic or pop-cultural. I'm also impressed with the argument that ESC is already pop culture, which is quite true. There may be one or two very significant things in this list which could be merged somewhere, but most of this really isn't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't support this one either, because I cannot see the difference between what should be covered here and what should be in the main article.DGG (talk) 05:30, 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 keep. Singu larity 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube Linux

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Chealer 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weasel-worded original research, possibly unverifiable too. (Damn it, another weasel word...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it is original research - The project itself may be original research but an article about it cannot be. Terrymr 06:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel free to improve the article with [6] and [7] among other sources. This article may be poor, but I think being in Forbes and Wired meets any reasonable notability criteria and satisfies the question of this being "original thought" . FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FrozenPurpleCube already said it, I'll refrain from repeating. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Embedded Linux. Leibniz 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's valid, as while it might be appropriate to mention this there, I do feel it's distinct enough on its own to merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too crufty and weaselly for that. Leibniz 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the article is rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources suggested by Mister Manticore. Ideally, merge along with similar articles (eg Xbox Linux) into somewhere more appropriate such as Linux on game consoles or, as suggested above, Embedded Linux. Jakew 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as above into an article about Linux on games consoles, Embedded Linux is a bit too catch-all for such a thing.. Xmoogle 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From checking around the web, it seems there is not much activity any more on Nintendo GameCube Linux. Even the web site linked from the article, http://www.gc-linux.org, seems to have not acquired much new material since March 2006. That suggests to me we are now looking at this Wikipedia article almost in its final form. The last edit which added *any* new technical information was this one on 2 March, 2006, by an anonymous contributor. Nearly all the present content is from the creator, User:Wrayal, who has not edited Wikipedia since May 2007. So I'm not optimistic about this article getting any better, and I don't think the creator is going to fix it. I'd be open to having the closer of this AfD userfy the page, in case anyone here wants to clean up the WP:OR and add references to the article. Otherwise I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it might not be active, mention by Forbes and Wired (reliable sources) are sufficient to give the project notability already.--Alasdair 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - highly notable subject, solid beginning of an article, just needs sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:46, 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 no consensus. --Core desat 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of government agencies in comics

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Original research, and even if verifiable, unencyclopedic collection of trivia. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though possibly split by publisher. Sorry, but OR is a bad claim here since there are obviously references in the article already. If you're so unfamiliar with comics you don't know that the others can also be referenced? Then I'd say that's unforgivable ignorance. I don't see that this is a collection of trivia, especially since many of the agencies have articles of their own. This organizes them in a convenient format that's better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The intro graf reads: "All comic book fictional universes depict their own versions of our reality except with the added complication of men and women who exhibit superhuman abilities. And each of those universe has evolved very different versions of government agencies and bureaucracies to deal with, and around posthumans." That's uncited original synthesis, and that counts as original research. Now I'm not unfamiliar with comic book universes, I'm sure that intro could be rewritten and referenced appropriately, but that still leaves the problem of this being an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This is fine for a comics wiki, but it's too much detail for WP. Groupthink 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you agree the intro could be rewritten, that's not an argument for deletion. If it concerns you, bring it up on the talk page. That would be a valid response. Not deletion. As to indiscriminate...what are you arguing is indiscriminate about it? Seriously, you can't just say "This is indiscriminate" when there's a reasonable definition to what this article constitutes. Fictional Gov't agencies in comics. Seems a limited class to me. Why is it indiscriminate? Now personally, I'd split it by publisher, which would be even more clearly defined. But that's an entirely different issue. As for the details, I consider the level of detail here quite adequate for Wikipedia, but highly inadequate for a database for comics. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point one: I should clarify. Rewriting the intro and supporting it with citations would take care of the OR problem, but the article should still be deleted. Rewriting the intro isn't enough: in theory, this article shouldn't be a list, it should be a topical article called "Government agencies in comic books". The problem is, that wouldn't salvage the article either because the topic isn't notable and is indiscriminate. Which brings me to point two: You're confusing "indiscriminate" with "unrelated". WP is supposed to be discerning about what is and is not included. Articles are supposed to be geared toward the general public, not a certain niche. This list, and this topic in general, is not sufficiently notable, informative or important enough for the masses. Groupthink 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your theory. (Which you haven't articulating, but seems to be "there should be an article expounding on a subject instead of a list"...is that accurate?? If not, please clarify what theory you're advocating). The idea of the kind of page you're supporting would seem to me to be advocating a position as opposed to presenting information. I prefer the later. And I am not confusing indiscriminate with unrelated, you're confusing saying X is so with saying *why* X is so. Please give me a reason why this is indiscriminate. And I'm not the only one asking. And no, I don't consider "This is only important to a certain niche" very conclusive. Exactly how would we determine that? A survey? Personal opinion? Checking search engine results? Sorry, but with these comic books being as popular as they are (which is enough that they've lead to movies, television shows, references books, documentaries etc), I'm willing to say the level of interest is sufficiently high to merit inclusion. If you want to object to "List of Government Agencies in Joe Schmoe's Independent Comic that was never produced in numbers beyond a hundred" that would be one thing. This isn't that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. How is this original research? The article doesn't seem to introduce any new information, or offer an original analysis/interpretation of existing information. This article does neither. In addition, I don't think Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is really applicable here, because the information in question is not indiscriminate, and is not in any way covered by the description given at WP:NOT#INFO. Overall, I really don't see a problem. The article does a pretty good job of organizing the information overall. Granted that multiple comic books tend to exist within the same universe (the DC universe, the Marvel universe, etc.) the information is very closely related, and the list does a good job of listing the government agencies that exist within these universes, providing a reasonable amount of information about each one, including both agencies that have articles and those that do not, so as to make the information easily accessible, but does not get too lengthy, or overly detailed. All in all, this is the sort of thing that lists are supposed to do, and I honestly don't see how the article is unencyclopedic (or original research, for that matter). Calgary 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while sourcing is still a problem and while it would be nice to have some sourced text on the significance of government agencies in comics (superhero comics, actually), the article does a rather good job at providing navigation and possibly development per WP:LIST. --Huon 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Pretty good example of a *whatever* in *whatever* list article. Artw 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not the sorting place for everything ever mentioned in fiction. List of loosely associated topics/trivial information Corpx 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response How are the topics loosely associated? In fact, the topics are quite closely connected. This is not a list of fictional government agencies in fiction, this is a list of government agencies in comic books, and as I've said before, because large numbers of comic books published by the same company exist within the same fictional "universe", they could easily be considered as closely connected as a list of government agencies within a single work of fiction, or a single series. And I don't see how it's trivial, because not only are some of these fictional agencies notable in and of themselves, but as a group they have significance and are worthy of inclusion, whereas separately, on an individual basis, many do not. Calgary 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, let's not forget that "notable" means "notable in the real world", not notable within a given comic publisher's universe. Second, I completely fail to understand your last argument: if some fictional agencies aren't notable on their own, how does aggregating them into a list give them notability? Groupthink 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Any and all notability for these organization is completely in the fictional universe. I fail to see why we should categorize anything ever mentioned in fiction. List of fictional hospitals? schools? countries? police stations? fire stations?. This is all trivial details Corpx 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I think the comic publisher's universes are clearly notable (or am I imagining the books, movies, television shows, and documentaries about them??), and that means that Wikipedia should describe them in an adequately comprehensive fashion. Especially since many of the agencies on this page do have their own individual articles. PS: See list of fictional countries. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate it for deletion and I'll be glad to support. Each and everything that exists/mentioned in a fictional universe is not notable. Corpx 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that doesn't mean nothing that exists or is mentioned in a fictional universe is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response What I'm saying is that even if each individual agency is not notable on their own, they are notable as a collective. While it would be senseless to have an individual article for each of these organization, instead this list provides a means of listing brief information about a group of closely related items, which are notable, but only in the scope of a larger subject. And I do agree with User:FrozenPurpleCube, in that the comic publishers' universes (especially DC and Marvel) have trancended most forms of media, getting to the point where much of these universes is within the scope of the popular consciousness. Now I'm not suggesting we should have an article like List of landmarks in Gotham City (although I think we do). In any case, the Comic publishers' universes are largely a part of popular culture, not just their respective comic serials. In addition, just for comparison, I'd like you to look at List of fictional institutions. Now there is an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. That is an article where most of the items are onlyloosely associated, branching out to all concievable forms of media, where the listings are hopelessly incomplete, and where the actual information is not organized in any way that can make it understandable/accessible to a reader. Now, I know that the existence of one does nothing to justify the existence of the other (saying "worse crap exists" isn't really an argument), but I think it does a very good job of putting things into perspective. Calgary 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still fail to understand how gathering individual non-notable items into a collection makes that collection notable. Now I do agree with your point that the broader aspects of comic publishers' universes have general notability, but it doesn't follow that all of the minutiae of said universes are thus bestowed with notability. To put it another way: Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. "List of streets in Metropolis" is not. Groupthink 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See articles on several of these agencies. See content of this page. If you can make anywhere near that level of content for streets in Metropolis, then we can consider that a reason to have such an article. But given that you probably won't, I'm going to say...why are we bothering to worry about a hypothetical article nobody supports? This is a different article about a different subject. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gathering of non-notable things and making a list of them is only suggested for minor characters in a fictional work. Transcending across unrelated works of fiction, picking out non-notable things and making a list is surely not acceptable Corpx 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, it seems that a List of streets in Metropolis article would have very little content. Lets think of it this way. Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. DC universe is encyclopedic. What about List of locations of the DC Universe? This list serves as the organizational point between multiple encyclopedic articles, and in addition, includes some locations that do not have their own articles, simply because such a list would be an appropriate place for such information. Lists are meant to serve organizational/navigational purposes. Both List of government agencies in comics and List of locations of the DC Universe do this, and do a very good job of it. So how are these lists unencyclopedic? And taking into consideration what Corpx said, if we split up the article between universes, and removed information about all organizations that do not have their own articles, wouldthat make the article encyclopedic? Calgary 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gathering of things though, should indicate that there are accepted ways to aggregate information. Given that many universes have distinct concepts *besides* characters, I hardly consider it inherently unreasonable to consider other things to include besides characters. This would seem to be one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in DC universe is not inherently notable. Any fan of any show/comic would tell you that stuff in their favorite work of fiction is notable and should be expanded, however, one guideline (WP:FICT) applies to them all. Even then, it is one thing to aggregate information found in one work of fiction, but going through unrelated works and aggregating similar things is trivia + loosely related. Corpx 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, feel free not to note how many hairs where on Lex Luthor's head, or the name of the man walking his dog that Superman saved with his Bus. Then get back to convincing me why these things aren't notable. Go ahead. FrozenPurpleCube 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove notability. Besides, I'm arguing that these are loosely related per WP:NOT#INFO Corpx 14:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles in question for the first. These are significant in a notable work of fiction. For the latter, no, I don't see they are inherently loosely related. I think the burden is on your to articulate that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Groupthink 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that WP:V is applicable here? Artw 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the arguments I've already made establishing that WP:V does apply here? Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the page can be sourced (some of it is already), if there's anything you dispute, try the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of this specific topic (as outlined in the intro graf) has not been sourced. As stated above, the burden is on the inclusionists to establish: 1) That this article is not original research and 2) That this article's specific topic is of sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. Tell you what: If you can find even one objective, verifiable secondary source written about "government agencies in comics" then I will immediately withdraw this nomination. Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:NOTE, not WP:V. I see no WP:V issues here. Artw 00:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do, as outlined above. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Groupthink 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to adhere to your standard, as it's obvious to me that this article isn't about government agencies in comics, it's about the government agencies in comics. (Can you see the difference??) There is no overall concern about original research here, as there's no inherent theory to the subject. All of these agencies should be citable to the comic(s) they appear in, as well as the various reference works produced for the comic universes. I don't see any on the page that I feel can't be cited, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Now as for notability, the individual comic universes are what's notable. This is an aid to describing them. (Note how several of these agencies do have articles...). Now I'd suggest breaking this up by universe, but that's not really deletion. And it is organized along those lines already, so I don't see it as an immediate need. Sorry, but I just don't find your arguments convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I yours. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll keep trying and hope to persuade you to the merits of my position. FrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) You're saying these are notable in the works of fiction. ("These are significant in a notable work of fiction"). The reason to have WP:FICT is so that we can decide whether the things notable in universe have any notability in the real world. Everything significant in a fictional universe is not notable in the real world Corpx 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? I don't requite a topic such as this to have significance in the real world. My position is different. Loosely written it is: Assuming that the work itself merits inclusion, would a proper description of this work include a description of whatever the thing is, be it a character, a creature, a geographical setting, or whatever else. Sorry, but as I see it, you're assuming I agree with your position. I don't. Thus your statements of how it fails to meet your criteria fall flat, since you've not convinced me to agree with them. See the problem? Now why do I have the position I have? Because I feel that a comprehensive description of a fictional work is appropriate so that people can find information on the subject they want. Note, however, I am using the term comprehensive. That is more than minimal but less than exhaustive. In this case, I would consider knowing what these agencies are practically essential to many aspects of the involved fictional works, to a greater or lesser degree. (Shield, Checkmate, IO, the BPRD being examples of the greater. Others being examples of lesser...some to the extent that they might be merged under other agencies. But that's not a deletion concern). This means they fit my comprehensive standard. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very loosely associated. All meaningful content is already contained in individual articles, with no important linkage between entries. Violates the base-page rule (i.e, there is no "government agencies in comics" article). --Eyrian 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you accepting that the individual agencies with articles merit them? And I don't think I know what base page rule you're talking about. Could you please inform me what you're talking about? FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed them all. The "base page rule" is derived from the essay Wikipedia:Listcruft. And no, it's not a hard rule, just a good indication that the association is not particularly meaningful, hence the WP:NOT#DIR violation. --Eyrian 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's not a rule, it's just an essay, which we're free to disregard. Which I will, if only because I consider anything that uses the term "cruft" in it to be uncivil and insulting rather than an appropriate argument as to a position. And unless you care to articulate a reason why it's applicable to this particular circumstance, I'm going to ignore it. Though I suppose you could argue that government agency is the base article if you wished. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it violates WP:NOT#DIR. The essay provides guidance on how that determination can be made. In this case, that association is very, very loose. These entries are related to each other only by the thinnest of threads. That makes this list in violation of policy. --Eyrian 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that this article doesn't come close to any of the concepts described under WP:NOT#DIR. Phonebook? No. Genealogical? No. Quotations? No. Aphorisms? No. Sales Catalog? Nope. This is actually a list article that provides substantial descriptive information of everything on it. Exactly what I look for in a list page actually. Especially with all of them meriting coverage to some extent or another, some of them in individual articles. Or don't you think something that appears in nationally available comic books over the course of several decades might merit some coverage? Honestly, do you have an actual argument that is directly pertinent to the subject of this list? Or are you just going to present arguments based on essays *without* applying them directly to the situation? I'm sorry, but that's really not convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it falls neatly under a loose association of topics. There is minimal commonality between these subjects. --Eyrian 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The subjects are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. The only way in which they are loosely associated is that the article lists more than one universe (I think there are around 6 in the article). Other than that, I don't really see any loose association. For subjects to be "loosely associated" they have to have little in common, making them only connected in a minor or trivial way. As it stands, they are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. This is the one major thing they have in common. The differentiating factors lie in the specific details of the agencies, and if you ask me the details about what something does is far more trivial than the general description of what something is. Calgary 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, a loose association of topics would be something like "list of things which are called Departments" while this is actually fairly specific as to being a list of gov't agencies in comics. It's not like we don't have other lists of Gov't agencies on Wikipedia. The only problem I have with it is that I feel it might be better served by splitting into the subpages. But since it's already *grouped* that way, it's not a great problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another thought. Wikipedia has several lists of actual government agencies, usually grouped by country. Now, these would indeed be more apparently notable, but would a list of government agencies by country be any less loosely associated than a list of fictional government agencies by universe? Calgary 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Such government agencies have common funding, follow common laws, are under a common constitution, etc. That aside, yes, there is a fundamental difference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the factual, not the fictional. Fictional details are given to place the work in context, so that it's real world impact can be understood. --Eyrian 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Things in a work of fiction are facts in and of themselves. Real world impact is a not a requirement, but a secondary matter. The primary matter is to accurately describe the elements of the work of fiction itself. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. Groupthink 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm afraid I disagree. Sometimes I actually find such things distracting and uninformative. I really don't always want to know what person X thinks of Concept Y. I'd rather know what Concept Y is. This is because I'd rather know what something is, than what other people think of it. This isn't to say such things aren't worth including, but that they are the secondary concern. This also applies to non-fictional material. YMMV. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you disagree with a policy that has strong and broad consensus. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily consensus can change, and not all things are set in stone. Not that I believe the consensus is particularly broad or strong. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tightly associated, sourced list. Nominations like this reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the utility of such lists, and the damage done by deleting them. RandomCritic 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Responses like that reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and is not encyclopedic. First off, the utility of a list is irrelevant. The fact that it's well-organized is irrelevant, and the fact that deleting it may or may not "do damage" is irrelevant. The notability of the list's parent topic or topics is irrelevant, and the existence of other similar lists is irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant! (And in case you were wondering, refutations like "it's not a formal policy" are, you guessed it, irrelevant.)

Secondly, as to the list being "sourced": The intro paragraph, which is the key to the entire list, IS NOT SOURCED. That makes it unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.

Thirdly, while "the items in this list are loosely associated" is a valid argument in-and-of-itself for deleting random lists of random things, "the items in this list are tightly associated" is NOT a valid argument in-and-of-itself for keeping a list. I've had a yen to to create a "List of songs which reference the song's performer" and a "List of songs which reference other musical performers", but I haven't, because we're supposed to be discriminating with what is or is not included... and criteria for said discrimination are not limited to the six specific items listed in WP:NOT#INFO! That's a ridiculous narrow constraint of a general policy.

Finally, no one has addressed my main point, which is that this specific list's topic is trivial, by which I mean that there are insufficient sources to establish that the general reader of this general encyclopedia will find this specific article to be notable. Y'all missed the point I was making with the "Metropolis" example. My assertion had nothing to do with amount of content. The point I was trying to make is that "Streets in Metropolis" is far less notable than either "Streets" or "Metropolis"... just like "government agencies in comics" is far less notable than either "government agencies" or "comics". Groupthink 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating that good arguments against deleting an argument are "irrelevant" (based on their being mentioned in a highly contentious essay) is not actually arguing anything, but rather avoiding the argument. If one accepted that at face value, then any proposed deletion would be a priori unassailable, as there would be no functional arguments against it -- in fact, to carry it to its logical conclusion, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all.
"Contentious" essay? If it's so contentious, why isn't it marked as such, and why does it have numerous "WP:" links to it? You're reasoning from a faulty premise there: the point of that essay is to provide guidelines for refuting BAD arguments, which is exactly what I did. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that having a "WP:" link makes it "official"? Perhaps you missed the bit at the top which says "THIS IS NOT POLICY"? Essays aren't usually marked as NPOV or whatever because, you know, they are essays and that kind of goes without saying. Evidence of the controversiality of the content can be found in the Talk page. In fact the essay too easily dismisses a lot of good arguments as "bad". In fact the argument from utility ought to be the best argument anybody has; any written policy should be subordinate to the question of what is best for Wikipedia, what makes it most accessible and useful as an information source. Policy should exist to realize that goal; the goal should not take a back seat to policy.RandomCritic 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is a straw-man argument: I never said that that essay was "official" policy, just that it carried weight. As to your "utility trumps all" philosophy: It is explicit WP policy that WP is not supposed to have universal and ubiquitous utility. Both sides of this debate are "arguing from utility" here: The question pending is whether the inclusion or the exclusion of this article makes this encyclopedia more useful. You say tomato, I say tomahto. Groupthink 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Wikipedia policy is shaped by Wikipedia editors. What that policy is can be determined to a great extent by precedent. If one editor, or a handful of editors, get it into their heads that something is "the real policy", and run around trying to backdoor legislate it despite the agreement of the generality of Wikipedia editors that it's not policy, or an appropriate interpretation of policy, then they can run around causing a lot of trouble and headaches for those editors who just want to get on with the job of making Wikipedia better. To make one erroneous deletion proposal is forgivable. To keep making them over and over again, in spite of rejections, based on a righteous theory that your view is the only correct one, is contrary to the spirit of collegiality that should prevail in Wikipedia. I understand that there are editing fads and fashions, as with other things, but at some point someone has to say: this has gone on long enough. Quit it!RandomCritic 07:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, talk about not actually arguing anything, or responding to arguments posed. An ad hominem attack like that is the last refuge of those that cannot or will not respond to valid questions raised. You imply that I'm being "righteous", that my deletion proposal is "erroneous", that I think my "view is the only correct one" (despite the fact that I have repeatedly cited policies and guidelines which are consented to broadly); you suggest that I'm acting "contrary to the spirit of collegiality that (sic) should prevail in Wikipedia"; then you conclude with "Quit it!"??? I'm floored. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing except, of course, topics with independent analysis on the particular subject. A chilling thought. Deleting articles without sources will, I'm afraid, never go out of style. --Eyrian 07:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is an unfortunate thing, since many times there are existing sources that anybody could find if they bothered to look. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, some people do not seem to realize that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that greatly differs from other online encyclopedias in that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and everyone is a volunteer. The only reason other encyclopedias aren't as large as Wikipedia is because they don't have enough resources to make it as large, and they only want hired professionals writing their articles. As such, Wikipedia has an almost unlimited amount of space for such articles as this, so it should not be deleted. Also, think: what good would come out of deleting this?--ElminsterAumar 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're not supposed to just throw out direct-links, but I'm getting tired of rewording the same refutations over and over. So: WP:NOHARM. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. WP:LOSE. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and your reasoning is? Groupthink 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's because I'm more convincing than you. But hey, if you want to object to people just agreeing with another, you'd better start up at the top. JUSTAVOTE, however, as clearly shown, is merely for those who simply say "Keep" or "Delete" without even a pretense of an explanation. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "I agree with ____" without a "because" lacks said pretense (see also WP:PERNOM). As for how convincing you are: I frankly don't care. This isn't a candidate's debate: this is about getting things RIGHT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm here to make Wikipedia better, and the only person I'm worried about convincing is the closing admin for this discussion. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to look at WP:PERNOM again. Or the discussion on the talk page about it. It's not actually considered universally repellent. Anwyay, this is about getting things right. So far as I'm concerned it's not making Wikipedia better by deleting this page. Splitting? Maybe. Deleting? Nope. I certainly haven't seen you make an argument as to why Wikipedia will be better with this page removed, as I see it, you've primarily relied on claims that we must follow existing policies and guidelines without regards to the application. I'm sorry, but that's not convincing. Furthermore, if all you're worried about is convincing one admin, you're mistaken in your goals. This isn't about convincing one admin, but convincing other users. The meaning of consensus is not finding one person with the keys who agrees with you. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that some canvassing has occurred [8] 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 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh puh-leez. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion." I made one off-hand comment on a fellow user's talk page. I complimented the input he/she has made in the past. While I did mention MY opinion on this subject, I did not ask for her/him to back me up. I love how you feel free to disregard WP consensus policy willy-nilly except when it suits your purposes. Groupthink 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I feel free to disagree with policy when I consider the policy to be in error. You're welcome to disagree as well, but you should at least have sound reasons for it. I don't feel you could have any sound reasoning for seeking out selected individuals for their participation in a discussion such as this. Seeking out individuals to develop consensus is not open, or neutral, but rather something of a clique. There are appropriate ways to do it, but you didn't choose one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was ONE SELECTED INDIVIDUAL, not "selected individuals", and I had a perfectly sound reason to comment on TenPoundHammer's talk page: I respect her/his opinions. Not only did I not solicit a supporting opinoin, I didn't even ask Hammer to comment here. I have to say I thoroughly resent the inappropriate choices that YOU'VE made here on this page. Rather than refute my arguments, you've engaged in ad hominem denigration, and I ask you to please stop immediately. Groupthink 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you selected an individual. This is still bad form. You can quibble over whether or not you actually intended for TPH to comment here, but given that your comment was seconding a person who explicitly did make the request for a comment on another AFD (Said person having apologized for that mistake), I'm not inclined to consider your explanation exculpatory. Sorry. If you do have some problem with my actions, feel free to bring them up in the appropriate venue. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a problem with your actions, so I will bring it up in the appropriate venue: this venue. The problem I have is that you've dismissed every relevant policy I've brought up here with a wave of your hand and an "Well, I don't think that's a good policy, so I'm free to ignore it." Yet you feel free to irrelevantly accuse me of canvassing in the name of policy.

"Ignore all rules" does not mean "ignore all rules arbitrarily," it means "don't let the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia." Similarly, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," does not mean that everyone can disregard policy on a whim. Now, I've laid out my reasoning as to why I think removing this article would improve Wikipedia, and you've laid out your arguments contrariwise. You strike me as an editor who always has to get in the last word, so I'm guessing that you're not going to drop this, but at this point, I see no further point in continuing any dialogue with you, so I'm done. Groupthink 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, none of the discussion at this point has anything to do with the article, but rather your actions regarding this process. These are quite different. And I consider it quite relevant to note your actions, because I do feel that seeking out individuals, even if it's just one, for their specific input, in a deletion discussion, is a problem in regards to swaying consensus. If you disagree, fine, but I don't think any of your comments reflect that instead focusing on trying to say how you didn't actually canvass because it was just one person and you didn't really ask them to comment here. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see that as exculpatory. Instead, I feel that it's a rather preposterous bit of trying to use a narrow interpretation of the language to excuse yourself. BTW, I always felt that people who really want the last word are the first to complain that others want to have it. Me, I'd just rather not mention it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's entirely fair to call that canvassing (though I don't think it's entirely fair to call those taht want the article kept 'fanboys' as if it was some crappy cruft list, but that's beside the point ). If canvassing is a concern then possibly the afd-for-beginners template should be added? Though I suspect groupthink is well away that it's not a ballot. Artw 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is minimal enough canvassing that I'm not concerned enough to take further action other than to ask people not to do it (note how I didn't add the template), but any time you contact other users to participate in a discussion, it should be completely above-board and done in the most neutral of terms. Seeking out an uninvolved individual for input in an AFD is not neutral enough for that. Contact the creator? Sure, that's valid. In that case, it's even ok to ask them to say why they might want it kept. Make a note on a wikiproject or other noticeboard? Go ahead, but if you do, it's important to be as neutral as possible. Give a note to everybody who participated in a past discussion? Also reasonable. But don't message selected people, even if it's just one person. That's just bad form. Adding in that it's a support for a uncivil comment in itself, and well, it's not good. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with you taking "further action". As you yourself said on your talk page, "I'm interested in any Wikipedia policy whose application I agree with," but you feel free to violate any policy whose application you disagree with. In other words, you do whatever you feel like without regard to consensus (except, of course, when it benefits your POV). I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical cherry-picking. If you want to notify an admin, be my guest. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. Groupthink 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to take further action at this time, and I hope you recognize that you shouln't engage in canvassing. As for the rest, I suggest you consider that policy is not something always something set in stone, but something that needs to be examined, and there are times we might have a bad policy. Certainly policies do change, and some should change. You can call it hypocritical cherry-picking if you like, but I call it common sense. Rules don't exist to be followed simply because they are rules. Rules are to be followed when they are appropriate to the circumstances. You may wish to read WP:IAR and WP:BURO for more consideration of the subject.

I've added the not-a-ballot termplate. I suggest that if either of you wish to discuss this further you do it via userpages Artw 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a simple notification was enough, but oh well. I would discuss this further, but I'm not sure that the involved editor would listen to my input. Perhaps Groupthink should seek out opinions from others instead. FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete per nom and Evb-wiki. Sarvagnya 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't criteria for speedy deletion. And just an observation, considering how long this discussion has been going on (several days), I don't think a "speedy deletion" could be considered very speedy at all. Calgary 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? WTF? What Calgary said. Artw 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, definitely does not meet CSD... Groupthink 05:17, 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 Deleted by User:Eyrian - Corpx 08:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pe0n

Wikipedia is not a 1337 dictionary. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry isn't much different than these: Noob, 1337, Ownage, Owned, Phreak, LOL, Headshot, Lamer etc. Radical-Dreamer 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And WP:SIG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to peon. Groupthink 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a dictionary-style definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a slang dictionary, or, indeed, a 1337 dictionary. I don't think a redirect to peon would be a good idea, because in this case "peon" and "pe0n" have entirely different meanings. *Possibly merge to List of internet slang phrases. Calgary 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peon does contain the definition of "pe0n" in a subsection. Groupthink 22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per above - notable but empty. Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Calgary. WP:NOT#DICT. As it is currently written, this article would seem to have qualified for speedy deletion by A5: "Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, or that has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded." It may have a home in the List of internet slang phrases, but not as a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note A user (this article's author) has added the content of the article to List of internet slang phrases. Calgary 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly failing WP:NEO - Tagged for CSD with db-nonsense Corpx 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable, and Empty. -Flubeca^Talk 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to l33t articles, even for redirects. comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 09:52, May 25, 2024 (UTC)
Comment Erm... Am I missing something or is this just a redirect? Surely this should be at TfD, not here; in which case this should be delisted and taken to the correct place. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was an article at the time this AfD was started, but it was speedily deleted during the AfD and then recreated. Weregerbil 07:32, 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 redirect to Facebook, given that it has been pointed out that much of the content here is also in that article. Feel free to merge any additional content necessary. --Core desat 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectU

Procedural nomination to fix a malformed AfD ElKevbo 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-From the discussion page-
This article should be deleted since the website ConnectU is not a known project. Its rating is very low and this website is only known because of its connection with Facebook. As we may see from the reference section that it only lists articles about lawsuits by ConnectU against Facebook and in my opinion that is not enough. The website must have a notability of its own and I think this is not the case with ConnectU. Northern 11:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectU is in fact a notable and known project. Its development of a university-wide social network specific to school institutions was the first of its kind. It is also inextricably linked to and a catalyst for web 2.0, niche social networks, and Facebook.

What is grounds for inclusion into Wikipedia is not the relative success or rank of a given website or company, which is of course in the case of ConnectU clouded by allegations of missapropriation, but rather the relative impact and notability of that said entity. comment added by Ashellray (talk • contribs) 22:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Facebook (although much of it already appears to be in that article). --ElKevbo 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage found. Do NOT merge into facebook. They're 2 separate competing entities Corpx 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage either seems to focus on the lawsuit or a quick mention of ConnectU as part of a roundup of social networking sites (and even those articles seem to focus much more on Facebook). --ElKevbo 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep great importance as a precursor , in its own right. That is led to something else, does not make it less notable. Ashellray has it right. DGG (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has hardly any information about the website. --Heero Kirashami 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This website can not be notable for one small reason: its Alexa rating is 81,253 which is VERY low. My website which I never advertised or promoted was like 300,000 so anything around 100,000 can't be notable.

And as already stated by me and the other person, all references about this website (or at least the ones that were included) are only about the lawsuit. It is a website, and therefore if it's not a known website, it can't have an article on Wikipedia. Just because the creator of the website filled a lawsuit does not make this website famous. Why don't we write about each and every person who sued myspace, then?
Again, this website's ONLY fame is through Facebook.
Northern 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable resulting controversy from the suit at Facebook. Italia^vivi 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tell Winklevoss ScrewU for suing facebook.--66.28.244.143 20:28, 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. Eluchil404 03:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of renamed products

Very difficult to maintain such a list; hopelessly un-useful as a reference. In todays global economy, products are often marketed with different names in different countries, inherently renaming them. All but completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mikeblas 15:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not unmaintainable... product names do not change from day to day, and tracking of name changes is notable. Usually, there's a reason why a name has been changed for a product. This is a concise way of recording transition in consumer marketing. Mandsford 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of loosely associated topics. The items on the list have no relation to each other except for the fact that they incurred a name change Corpx 19:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valuable as a navigation tool, but consider name change. Most are companies or services, not products. "No relation to each other except for the fact that they X" is the definition of any list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question is whether what defines the list is sufficiently significant or fundamental to the nature of the items on the list. In this case I think not. Wikipedia is not a directory -- directories are too hard to maintain. This article invites every tiny little non-notable product with a name change to advertise itself. --Coppertwig 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correction of disuseage of above comments, remove non-notable and unimportant. Roded86400 15:44, 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 keep. WjBscribe 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani kapoor

Asserts notability but does not provide any references or sources for verification. Looks suspiciously like a vanity bio WebHamster 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use work, but I did some googling and turned up a fair number of sources about her. I've added a few of them to the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read them. A couple of "gossip" type articles. The film she is supposed to be in barely rates an empty template on Imdb, she doesn't even get an entry. The references you cited mostly point out that her fame is based on whoever she's dating at any particular time. Hardly credible sources for notability (which isn't the same as fame or notoriety}. WebHamster 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. I tagged it for speedy, which was denied based on the award won. I also searched for and added one reference. None of the sources I came across was hugely reliable, and her "accomplishments" are not that great, . . . yet? Fails WP:BIO in my book. --Evb-wiki 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite notable in Indian modeling circles. [9]. utcursch | talk 13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know much about Indian models and even I've heard of her name. Lots of references added since nomination. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:49, 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. --Core desat 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nokia products

List of non-notable products. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article adds little value and is unencyclopedic in addition to being unreferenced. Mikeblas 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Recently, Wikipedia made the news because of its increasing use as a corporate vehicle (ex., International Herald-Tribune, "Corporate editing of Wikipedia revealed", www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/business/wiki.php ). You kind of have to wonder who would create a Wikipedia article about all the models of Nokia phones that have ever been made. An obsessed cellular fan? Perhaps. I think this one comes straight from the public relations branch. Mandsford 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is neither filled with non-notable products nor is it indiscriminate information. It is extremely valueable as it presents a complete list of Nokia products with additional information in sortable lists allowing for comparison. Lists such as these replace having an encyclopedic article for every product. However, The article does need referencing and some clean-up. I also do not understand nominating this article again. Looking at the old AFD, the consensus was overwhelmingly "Keep". Rwhealey 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of the products are cell phones. They're not notable; the industry is completely saturated with them and these are not innovative or ground-breaking examples. Other products listed include ADSL modems, which are completely pedestrian. The encyclopedic articles you refer to are largely unreferenced, read like adverts, include trivia sections, and are mostly orphans. -- Mikeblas 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons expressed above, and due to several of the phones named having their own articles. As this list offers more than just a directory of models, but rather other relevant information, it's better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Wikipedia is not a directory. Lack of evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This is a useful and informative list. I've used it many times for phone research. It just needs to be cleaned up and de-redlinked. —TigerK 69 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Non-notable products? The article links to over a hundred different articles on Nokia-products. If you think they are non-notable, you should start the discussion on those articles. -- Petri Krohn 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have, not that it's relevant. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Mikeblas 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think it's disingenuous to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF here - Petri Krohn was referring to the content of the article, and not saying 'but 'List of Samsung products' was kept. Wibbble 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - survived 2005 deletion vote, should survive this one too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 1. non-notable products (WP:NN) - to argue this, I think you would have to argue against the existence of the linked articles about each phone and series. If they exist, this list is useful, and much better than a Category. 2. not a directory - None of WP:NOT#DIR apply (1 - these topics are clearly not loosely associated; 2 - not genealogical or phonebook; 3/4 are aimed at avoiding promotional material, whereas this is archival). Similarly 3 - It is hardly indiscriminate (WP:NOT#INFO). Personally, I have just this week found this article a very useful resource after starting work at phone-related company - finding information and comparisons on non-current models is not as easy as it might be. (You may take that as a declaration of interest if you wish, but I've also found it useful before) That said, I agree with comment here and in the previous AfD (and in Talk) that the page needs cleaning up. (Aside: the revision history suggests that you proposed this before reading the previous AfD debate, and I don't feel that this AfD adds anything new) - Royan 10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I wonder if we really need an article on every cellphone in existence, this is no more a directory than List of Google products, List of IBM products, Amiga models and variants, List of Intel microprocessors, or List of Microsoft Windows versions. And if by "directory" you mean "repository of information", then every article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products says "Minor products from a company should be merged into a 'list of minor products from this company' which is kept in the company article, unless it becomes too large as above." This list appears too large for the Nokia article. I'm wary of Wikipedia being used for marketing, but I don't think this article reads like an advertisement. Words like "ground-breaking" and "pedestrian" are highly opinionated though. If there are many articles on this list, it may even be wise to merge that information into this list instead of having a separate article on each and every cellphone. --Pixelface 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royan and Pixelface. This is neither a directory nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of products, many of which are themselves notable, manufactured by a notable company, and serves as an index to encyclopedic articles, as well as being informative in itself, with copious annotation, about the types of products this company has offered in the past as well as what it offers now. Any products or product lines which are not particularly notable or don't have any information which can be sourced to reliable sources could be removed from the list, but this would still leave a valid list of many notable and significant ones. Articles which can be improved should not be deleted (see WP:RUBBISH). DHowell 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasoning as for AfD of Motorola products. See there for detailed argument. Highlights include: Compliant with WP:LIST; provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:23, 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. --Core desat 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by ASUS

Uncited list of non-notable products. WP is not an arbitrary collection of information, and WP is not a directory. Mikeblas 15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list of info is a little spammy. --Evb-wiki 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom that this list is simply an indiscriminate list of infromation, unlike the above nominated Nokia list.Rwhealey 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we're not a directory of ASUS products Corpx 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume one can find mention of each of these products within the links in the External links section. I don't think Wikipedia should be used for marketing, but I see no language in this article to indicate it's an advertisement. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products says "Minor products from a company should be merged into a 'list of minor products from this company' which is kept in the company article, unless it becomes too large as above." Wikipedia has many lists of products[10]. Is the nominator assuming that all lists on Wikipedia are directories? WP:N pertains to the suitability of article topics but does not directly limit the content of articles. While each product in the list may not be notable enough to merit it's own article, it would fit fine on a list. --Pixelface 04:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pixelface. This is neither a directory nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of products manufactured by a notable company. It could use some sourcing, but this shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of reliable sources to be found, for example, about their motherboards in newspapers and books. DHowell 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compliant with WP:LIST. Provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. Deletion policy/Brand name products seems to indicate that consensus is that lists of products are acceptable. If we want to change that (and maybe we should), start there, not by AfD'ing selected lists. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:32, 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. The issue raised by this article's nomination at AfD was the lack of independent citable sources. At no point in this debate have I seen the opposition saying they have reliable third party sources. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, which means I discounted many of the ILIKEIT votes. The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources, and the community replied with poor rationales for keeping. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can restore to userspace if the information needs merging elsewhere, which seemed to be raised as an issue as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akatsuki members

Wikipedia articles should be compiled from information that is independent of the topic. The information in this list is from the topic itself, namely from the pages of the Naruto manga print cartoon. If no third-party reliable source cared enough to publish this information, why should Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject, including the Naruto manga series. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. In addition, the article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists. An AfD that links to "List of Akatsuki members" and appears relevant to this discussion is Akatsuki leader AfD -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Merge I'd say to merge the list of the Akatsuki members, and if necessary allow for their own personal pages. SonicMobius 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naruto is notable. This is an aspect of a reasonably notable part of the show, the Akatsuki, and is a case of inherited notability through the logical concept that describing the members of an organization is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you wish to argue for the deletion of this page, you must first show that the Akatsuki don't merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Importance or significance of the topic addresses whether it should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Wikipedia:Notability addresses whether there is enough source material that is independent of the topic to develop an article on that topic. In this case, there is not enough independent source material. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 is inapplicable here. Note how it says *real* ? Besides, there doesn't have to be independent source material for all things, especially not stuff that arises out of a work of fiction. Why? Because Luke Skywalker saying he's a Jedi knight is something we can attribute to the work itself. If you really want independent sources [11] may be what you want. If it's not, feel free to look for others. FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. --Phirazo 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability CAN be inherited, as in the case of a sub-article of a larger subject. This is exactly that. Get back to me when you're not just dumping a wikilink but are actually considering applying an argument applicable to the subject at hand. Or at least, looking at the argument you're linking to, which actually covers this issue. Or did you not notice? FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notablility is never inherited. There is no such thing as a "sub-article". Articles must be able to stand alone on thier merits. As the article I linked says, "If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." --Phirazo 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the essay you linked also says "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes," which is clearly the point of this list. Do you have an argument as to why the membership of this organization shouldn't be covered in some form on Wikipedia? FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the membership should be covered - in a list of just names in Akatsuki (Naruto), not in a stand-alone article. There is no reason it should be covered in this depth when there are no reliable secondary sources about any of this. --Phirazo 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to suggest a shallower depth, however, given that there *is* information about the members of the Akatsuku, I think it's hardly unreasonable to say that more should be provided than just a list of names. That would be removing content for no good reason. If you want to go with the decision below to merge the article back up, I'm not opposed to the idea, it might work. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The section is notable as the Akatsuki is notable. The reason for the list was to pretty much shorten the artcle and rework the main Akatsuki page with an out of universe fashion.--TheUltimate3 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per directly above reason. Mr. Brigg's Ink 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -As Ultimate 3 said,it is notable and used to be part of a larger article but was removed for space issues.Lastbetrayal 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator claims that the List of Akatsuki Members had no third party source. If that were to determine the article deletion, most of Naruto related articles would be deleted. (Example). I feel that, the no third party reference alone does not give a enough reason to delete. Also if this is deleted, all the information would be merged into the Akatsuki page which would equal around 50 KB. While not incredibly high, it is better to keep it as it is. -ScotchMB 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Metal Gear Solid characters and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, two featured lists that should be a model for other articles hoping to reach FL status, are predominately sourced directly from the games they are about or from those who are connected with the games (creators, fan sites, etc.) While they each have a handful of third party sources, the fact remains that the majority of their content has not been covered by "reliable" bodies. Should they be deleted too? Should they be considered crap that exists in other places, and therefore allowed no relevance to this article's deletion discussion? ~Snapper T o 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a FA, not a list, and is significantly different from List of Metal Gear Solid characters. The former covers the characters as a whole rather than the characters themselves, while the latter is actually a list. Both, however, are indeed excellent templates for such articles. The essential problem here is that there has been little to no third party publications concerning the Akatsuki members, especially considering that many of them have been recently introduced. There also has been hardly any reception that I have seen save the popularity polls that are included in the article, which by themselves do not constitute notability. Furthermore, the creator of these characters, Kishimoto, has released little to no information on the design or conception of these characters. As such, this article ultimately cannot pass WP:FICT. The aforementioned two articles do due to the presence of the above information, and it is thus suitable for them to have their own articles. For this article, we cannot bank on future notability (WP:CRYSTAL), nor make our own conclusions from available information (WP:NOR). If I am incorrect, and such information does exist, then this article should definitely be cleaned up and written in an out-of-universe tone as per WP:WAF with the relevant information. As it is now, however, a deletion or merger would be proper. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would explain why it wasn't included in the list of featured lists, though its structure is still very similar to that of a generic list of characters (conception and reception excluded). The purpose of my comment, however, was to refute the nom's claims that an article must be drenched in third-party sources to be considered Wikipedia-worthy; I am well aware of this article's other faults. As such, I'm working on recombining this article with Akatsuki (Naruto), condensing the information to the bare-essentials, putting an out-of-universe spin on it, and actually sourcing the information. Once that's done I'll see what can be found in terms of third-party stuff. ~Snapper T o 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for every reason stated and that losing this page and merging it to the main akatsuki page would make the main article much too long and force some members to be made into articles, something I'm trying to move away from. If the nominator can't come back with any new reasons to this article's deletion then i think this disscussion will end rather quickly.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. They are very important characters in the series. Belgium EO 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SUMMARY does not excuse an article that is almost entirely a plot summary. Place a short list (names only) in Akatsuki (Naruto), and be done with it. --Phirazo 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The articles mentioned by Snapper also have plot summery. Do you plan to delete those after you through here?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If an article is entirely plot summary, it needs to go. --Phirazo 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all this into List of characters in _______. I'm strongly opposed to giving game guide level coverage to fictional works. This is all completely in universe content and only a List of characters in ______ is appropriate Corpx 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! If we lose this, it will make everything less encyclopedic. Jazz Band Member 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Jazz Band Member (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But considering how large the Naruto cast is, its easier and dare I say more encyclopediac to sort them out accordingly.--TheUltimate3 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're not their own articles, so I'm happy. List of Characters, done properly, are beneficial. This one could use some formatting and trimming, but it's ok. i ^said 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please, stop brandishing your guidelines like the deadly encyclopedic weapons they are not. Other than that, there's essentially no reason this article should be deleted - particularly noting it has already been condensed to a list and acts as a sub-article "for formatting and display purposes". Would you accordingly go about deleting all the plot summaries and character biographies of other articles as well? Then think before you apply. 76.10.151.209 23:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refer to WP:IAR. This policy clearly shows that we gotta ignore all the rules to improve the standard of Wikpedia, particularly the Naruto articles. After all, this is an encyclopaedia to inform others, not to be a 'rulebook'. Omghgomg 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do plot summaries unreferenced outside the primary source make Wikipedia a better encylopedia? If you are going to invoke WP:IAR, you need to explain how it makes the encylopedia better. --Phirazo 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, I guess that the article inform members of the audience that how these characters influence the continuing plotline of Naruto. Hope that made sense. If not, leave a comment and I'll try to explain it a bit more. =) Omghgomg 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie. Now that the pun is out of the way, the wikipedian policy for controversial mergers/deletions is for supermajority to take over. In order for this article to be deleted, 60%-80% need to agree on deletion. so far we have 15 people, 12 keep, 2 deletions, and 1 merge. 13.3% agree to deletion which is hardly enough to warant a deletion. [Too lazy to loggin-Kasokaix]--172.129.101.84 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 172.129.101.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recall that Wikipedia is not a democracy. To determine consensus, administrators do not (or should not rather) count votes to determine what consensus is. To be frank, no argument has really refuted Jreferee's argument thus far, and as it stands, those are proper grounds for deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I refute, or at least dispute, his claims. There are plenty of books on Naruto. The show itself is absolutely notable. It stands to reason that if the Akatsuki is significant within Naruto (not being disputed here so far as I can tell), then its members can be identified, perhaps through some of those existing books. I noted one above. And that even assumes that somehow one is required to seek third-party sources. I feel the actual work of fiction is quite adequate for many things, including being the source of a lot of information. Do we need a third-party source to tell us Luke Skywalker became a Jedi? That his father was Anakin Skywalker who became Darth Vader? No, we don't. Do we need one to tell us that Luke's Lightsaber was green? Vader's was red? Nope. Now a third-party source that describes his story as being a version of Jesus Christ, yes, or Campbell's Hero's Journey. But those are secondary concerns that fall far short of the purpose of an article on Luke Skywalker. Which is to tell us who *he* is. Not what other people think he is. A similar principle applies here. Anyway, while you may not agree with the positions here, any admin who didn't look at it, and see the potential support existing here would be well-advised to consider whether consensus is in support of the nominator or not. I don't see very much of it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the show itself could not provide sources to supplement the article. By all means, such references are ultimately necessary. However, if the only verifiable sources that the article has are the source material itself, then it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. And yes, a majority is indeed in favor of keeping it right now. However, many of them have no argument beyond "these characters are important" or that it makes Wikipedia less "encyclopedic," and I'm referring to those arguments that should be disregarded by a closing administrator. After reviewing the deletion policy concerning minor characters, however, such treatment in a list is preferable to them having multiple articles. Keep or merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of this MfD should follow Deciding whether to delete. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This anime has run hundreds of epidodes with hundreds of characters. To amalgamate them would be ignoring the need to create a easily viewed article. Delete them if they get their own articles, but as a list, it is inconvenient to have them elsewhere MagiMika 11:46 26 August 2007 (GMT) — MagiMika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - The Akatsuki play a major role in Naruto, as do hollows and shinigami in Bleach. Since the members, excluding Itachi Uchiha, are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, we made a list for them. Merging them into a list of villains in the series might be considered reasonable, but deleted it is simply ludicrous. // DecaimientoPoético 15:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standing deletion policy about minor character, which is still in effect. Though whether the characters are minor or major is arguable, the articles does follow deletion policy as far as the treatment of minor characters is concerned. --Farix (Talk) 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete important though the main topic may be, this much attention to the details of individual characters careers would be appropriate only for the really major characters of the story. I admit I don't know the series, but if I understand the article right, this entire list is only one of the story lines. Considering that one of them is called "unnamed member," I rather doubt the importance of them all. Possibly include them all in the article for the clan, if that is the right term. DGG (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They're basically the main antagonists of the whole series. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to have the series of articles about Naruto make sense as a whole, you need to have this one. 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.122.253 (talk)
DELETE The akatsuki stated they didn't need wikipedia, so wikipedia doesn't need them. Wikipedia is not a democracy we can delete the character page if we want-TheNarutoKing -- 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP chicolambre other wise known as Uzumaiki Naruto Keep the akaski character page! 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP DO NOT DELETE! 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). Delete I have to agree with the minority. Do the akatsuki really need a member's page? No, ecspecially since some of the Konoha nine don't have their own pages. Just mention them in the main article. 67.140.54.49 (talk · contribs · logs) 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 67.140.54.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above was added by one anon, in two places in the AfD. This might be vandalism, but I'll leave it in anyway. --Phirazo 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two deletes featured above were made by the same anon after a few attempts to alter the comments of others. ~Snapper T o 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Akatsuki stated they didn't need wiki? That makes it sound like the Akatsuki members actually said that. Jazz Band Member 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 67.140.54.49 has been blocked to allow this AfD to proceed unvandalized. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, yo Some of us need like, information about the characters and stuff. There'd be no Naruto without the Akatsuki. 24.161.46.132 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)MalfunctioningMalfoy — 24.161.46.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Akatsuki are the main focus of Shippuden/Part 2 and continue to be the main focus. Each of their dead members has left some sort of lasting impression on the Naruto world as a whole. I think its an extreme disservice to what they mean to Naruto to relegate them to a page full of other villains. I can see merging this back with the Akatsuki organization page, but the members should not be merged with other villains. -- 66.229.88.52 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 66.229.88.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as this doesn't help my arguement at Itachi's page I have to say that I know knowing the story doesn't help but if the nominators and the fellow deleters should read up on the story of the manga to understand that these aren't minor characters as many seem to think they are.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that most (if any) of the Akatsuki members are major characters. Major character implies that they have received significant coverage by the source material for a large period of time (or perhaps its entire continuity). Many of the Rookie Nine have received much more coverage than many of the Akatsuki members, and are understood to be minor characters. Akatsuki as a whole is considered major rather than the individual members that compromise it. The members thus far are featured prominently for a short period and subsequently dropped, or otherwise fade into obscurity. Itachi is the only one that really goes somewhat beyond this, but that is questionable. Yes, the individual members could receive much more coverage in the future, but we're not here to speculate on that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the Akatsuki members are the main evil dudes, and that makes them at least major. Jazz Band Member 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the organization as a whole is notable. The individual members (excluding the current dispute over Itachi Uchiha) are minor. Merging is appropriate into the main article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasori and Deidara did more and have more backstory than most of the Rookie 9. Kakuzu and Hidan didn't but they encompassed one of the largest, if not the largest arc in the series. If all the Konoha Teams can be placed in their own page, I don't see why the Akatsuki members can't get their own or just be merged back with the organization page. After all, the Akatsuki is nothing without the members and thus I don't think its right to give the organization its own page and then put the members on some random villain list.. 66.229.88.52 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clarifying that they are not major characters. My point with the Rookie Nine characters is that everyone besides Naruto, Sakura, and Sasuke are considered more or less minor, while many of them have received more coverage than practically every other Akatsuki member. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and merge to an appropriate parent article, I don't see and can't find any indication that this part of the fictional work is on its own notable. Just because a fictional work is notable doesn't mean every piece of it is, this organization can be mentioned briefly in the plot summary of the parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). I know that it already broke off of Akatsuki's article, but it can fit back in if it is heavily condensed. Cut the plot aside from background, keep abilities and personality in a brief blurb that is as condensed as possible. Oh, and cut the stats under each character's header. You Can 't See Me! 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subtopics are perfectly acceptable when the content becomes too large. Though the content could be trimmed down, I wonder if it would be by enough. Regardless, a merge would require it being kept anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto. In order for an unfamiliar reader to gain any reasonable understanding of Akatsuki as a whole, they need to understand the characters that make up the organisation. That make this article entirely necessary in order for the Akatsuki article to be at all encyclopaedic. 121.44.245.55 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — 121.44.245.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie... 172.129.101.84 => ^_^ Hu, that's guy is right ! --Mrpouetpouet 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what if you think he/she is right? Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is the quality of the argument, not the quantity. Omghgomg 10:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, yeah I just found that very funny ^^ I can only agree with Jreferee, there isn't no independant source about akatsuki's members. However it's a problem that can be noted with most of articles about manga's characters... But in that case it concerns :"2 649 ± 8% 0.0264% 24. List of Akatsuki members"; I really enjoyed reading this article several times ^_^. That's why it seems me cleverer too keep it waiting for devloppement of the manga and independant sources than to delete this article that isn't that bad. (Thus it exists a few independant sources about akatsuki in japenese ;) --Mrpouetpouet 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto That's right. Akatsuki's members are major charaters of the second part, several ones are still misterious, that's true; however do not forget that that "season" hasn't been completed yet ;)[reply]
Keep or Merge Akatsuki members themselves (excluding Itachi) can be considered minor characters of a major work, and as such a list is not unreasonable. Although, I do think that the information should be condensed and possibly re-written (in either keep or merge), as most of the information given seems like it's been tacked on piece by piece rather than written as a whole. Ansalo 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless minor characters in akatsuki (not minor members) are trimmed, in that case merge. The reason why it was splited out before is that the entire list is too long, and even with all our current edits, it may be so. In any case, Itachi is certainly a keeper, but Sasori is not (only one arc). As Deidara is dead, from what i know, he is just there for comic relief. Hidan is only interesting because he is not dead and killed Asuma, while his partner (I even forgot his name -_-; ) is just as worthless (just another villian). I will err on Tobi and Pein, as they are the leaders of Akatsuki. Still, as I said, by the time we can trim enough to merge it, it would still be too long.George Leung 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhy would anyone want to delete this page?? This page is very informative on the members of the Akatsuki.I would hate it if i was looking for the Akatskui page for inromation, and it was deleted. -- notshortbutchibi 710:11, 28 Agaust 2007 (UTC)
KeepI like this list better than if each member has their own pages, its more organized. Third party sources have indeed compiled info on the organization, just they are not very notable. I suggest at least merging this article with Akatsuki (naruto) if we cannot keep this page 65.33.155.10 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per AfD: Chess Pieces (MÄR). The only difference here is that the characters were split off from the main article because it got too long, this is understandable because Naruto is obviously a lot longer, more indepth and popular than MÄR is. You might as well merge List of Major Konoha teams back into the main List of Konoha Ninja article, followed by merging that into the Konoha article itself. - The Norse 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on, I can see that some other members don't know about supermajority, but the admins? Supermajority is in fact the policy of Wikipedia. It is used in controversial mergers and deletions like this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Supermajority is wikipedian policy. Look it up if you don't believe me. To be deleted, this article must have a consensus towards deletion, however This is very controversial and consensus will not be reached. While a good portion of arguements are against wikipedian policies, most are legitamite arguements. I'd also like to state that simply saying that they aren't major is kind of pointless as not all members are, the organization is major and a few of the members are still being debated about that very subject. 172.162.61.144 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, what? Wikipedia:Supermajority is tagged as {{rejected}}. Consensus != voting --Phirazo 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per this magazine. Incidentally, I have yet to not see this magazine in a supermarket - I am just be limited to supermarkets in the continental US, though.KrytenKoro —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Keep Delete the page of the Akatsuki members? This makes about as much sense as deleting the page of Organization XIII from Kingdom Hearts II or the Empire from Star Wars. These are the MAIN VILLIANS of Naruto II we're talking about here. If Orochimaru has his own page, seeing that he was the villian of most of Naruto's first part, this these guys should have their own as well. Read most of the manga, and you could see WHO killed Gaara to take his beast, WHO killed Amaru, etc. Suggestion, instead of wiping out this article, how about you cut and merge this one with the Akatsuki, and keep the important info of the members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 08:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Keep Although many of the characters themselves are minor, Akatsuki as a whole are a major part as the antagonists of the series. Their philosophy of being a ninja are against everything stood for by the major villages, including Leaf and Sand, and their actions are intent towards the destruction of life as the protagonists know it. The article should be better organized regarding the characters, basing around their personality and their position in the story (Sasori: village destroyer, Chiyo's grandson; Hidan: motivates Shikamaru to action after killing his sensei Asuma, etc) At the same time, the article for Itachi Uchiha should also be kept seperate from the other Akatsuki outside links, due to his connection not only with the organization but due to his connection with many of the actions in the Leaf village. The revenge of the destruction of the clan, connected with side protagonist Sasuke Uchiha, is a major revolving plot of the series and I do believe there is enough information involving Itachi's character both now and in the future that merits him an article unconnected to the rest of the Akatsuki characters, particularly since he is the Leaf representative in the organization and the driving character not only for Sasuke but also for Naruto and other characters in the village. -StrangerAtaru 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naruto, which I had never heard of, is in the top 10 of Wikipedia pages visited for August. It has consistently been in the top 100 for several months (all those I checked). This indicates to me that it is an extraordinarily popular topic. An article on any work of fiction would be expected to include information about characters and organizations in the story. However, when that, and the other information in the article, gets to be too long it has been our standard practice to 'split out' sections into separate articles. I do not agree that those 'sub articles' inherit no 'notability' from the primary topic... given that they are just parts of that primary article which have been re-located for page size reasons. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to place the exact same info back into the 'Naruto' article (and doing likewise for all fictional topics) to 'protect' it from deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to create sub-articles to help in logically organizing a topic... and we shouldn't re-imagine our deletion procedures to dissuade users from following those good article organization practices. If this info were in the Naruto article it would be kept. Possibly rewritten for clarity, brevity, and significance but absolutely and unquestionably kept. Not keeping it when it has been split out accomplishes nothing except undermining good article design. --CBD 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SS and because this page is needed to understand the complex plot and structure of Naruto. - Peregrine Fisher 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Akatsuki is a major villain in Naruto, and therefore there should be a page that tends to Akatsuki individually, including it's members, since Akatsuki is not a minor villain and has alot to do with the whole plot of Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handro3 (talk • contribs) 22:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC) — Handro3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - things are getting sort of confused here. The list of Akatsuki members is certainly worth having, but as part of the main Akatsuki page. I don't think it needs to be split off into its own article like this. Doceirias 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was split off due to length conerns, not its own merit as an article. - The Norse 03:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main Akatsuki article is pretty short. And I believe Wikipedia policy would have it that every article needs to stand on its own. Doceirias 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not Wikipedia policy, as there are both people with that position, and people who don't interpret things that way. It's still an ongoing matter, at least as regards fiction. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So some articles are immune to WP:PLOT because they are "sub-articles"? News to me. --Phirazo 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more because of WP:CONSENSUS actually. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 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. WjBscribe 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Medical Center

This article has been flagged as having many issues. The major ones causing this nomination are lack of any real asserted and cited notability in the article itself (whether the place is notable or not I cannot easily tell from the article), and the total advertorial feel of the entire article. The other issues are as valid, but are secondary and are flagged in the article itself using {{articleissues}}. should the major issues be addressed I can be persuaded by coherent argument to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was skeptical that this article would need to be deleted, but more than one search I just completed looking for articles to cite that would establish notability turned up nothing of real value. While I would be against a blanket "hospitals are notable" position, I have actually started more than one hospital article with appropriate sources that establish notability. I don't see them here. Erechtheus 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first Kaiser Hospital, albeit moved to a new building. Also an element of a long running dispute about hospital coverage in poorer areas of the country There's been a staring contest between this hospital and another nearby, both owners wanting to close theirs down and let the other pick up the slack. I flat out don't have time to fix this right now. - Richfife 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. What would notability require? I'm sure that local newspapers have written articles on them. That doesn't make them notable. Without an explicit standard, I don't see how you make a decision. That would probably default to a Keep. MarkinBoston 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why wouldn't an appropriate level of coverage in local press make this hospital notable? In fact, that is precisely the sort of coverage I would expect would make this sort of institution notable. Erechtheus 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment using a {{cite}} (one of the relevant ones) appropriately to cite newspaper coverage is perfectly valid, and is exactly what is required. The other issues the article has also need substantial attention, but good citations would go a long way to redeeming it. I am concerned both about the cited notability and the article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems we're on exactly the same page, then. I know of no citations that could be made, which is why I expressed my support for deletion. If somebody does have citations, it would be my hope they would add them. Erechtheus 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have a big apparent COI, but having worked at KP, I'm not sure that any of our (thirty plus) individual medical centers are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles. As to KFH RMC itself, it wasn't the first Kaiser Permanente hospital, it was the second. In any event, notability isn't asserted, and I'm not sure it can be, all things considered, so delete. justen 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically just another regional hospital in this area. This article is a result of the unfortunate tendency by certain editors to attempt to document every single structure within their view, which only trivializes this as an "encyclopedia". There has to be some gate-keeping done so that the whole thing doesn't collapse under the tremendous weight of accumulated cruft. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - We're not a directory of hospitals. A lot of the stuff in that Richmond template needs to be deleted Corpx 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County, and its the first kaiser hospital, the longest running its the direct descendant of Henry J. Kaiser's healh plan for the shipyard workers of world war II, the original campus is on the national register of historic places. the hospital is in the news all the time because it is having to brunt all of the emergency services of the entire region since the doctor's medical center hospital in san pablo's emergency services department had to close, maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. but if we delete it then there is nothing and nothing may be improved. id also like to say if every episode of friends or monk is worth an article why not an important campus such as this? it is many times larger than say Berkeley City College in berkeley and is of similar size as the Bay Street Mall in Emeryville. let me find some more information.Cholga^talK! 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment you said Maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. You have obviously not read the nomination. Rewrite it and address the issues and I will be persuaded to withdraw the nomination. A rwrite is not rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but a real, meaningful rewrite. The AfD process is designed with this action in mind. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think people would have a much higher chance of looking up kaiser richmond than an episode of a TV show, i think ti should be noted that hospital articles are very common and it may be unfair to delete this article and not say any other san francisco bay area hospital articles 17 or in california 93 or in the united states (53 categories), hospitals by country 75 categories! there are hundreds of these articles, maybe thousands, id say they any hospital is notable, especially a large one such as this. this article is part of a series on such structures.Cholga^talK! 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: Please tell us why you think they (other hospital articles) and this article are notable. It's not enough to say "I think they're notable"; you need to explain your rationale for it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment yet another reason i think this article should exist is that think about it, the name shows up in the news all the time and you might want to find more information about somthing you hear about in the news, do a simple google news search for the article's title and youll see just that, people know it by name.Cholga^talK! 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is actually a historically important hospital as it was one of the first hospital (then called the Richmond Field Hospital) built by Henry J. Kaiser to serve employees of his extremely important World War II shipbuilding efforts in the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond (specific article: Richmond Shipyards) and vicinity. It was here that was the birth of the HMO, for better or for worse.[12][13][14] --Oakshade 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references, if they assert notability, should go into the article. Stating them here is interesting, helpful and not the full job. This article is in a woeful state. If you feel strongly enough to go for a strong keep, please edit it strongly too. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is the full job, it asserts the notability, you should try and be more encouraging because from my point of view your comment was very demanding. one more note why is there an article for nearly every vehicle that the Unitrans bus agency uses or have ever used and this article is up for deletion? wtf?[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you are misunderstanding the task at hand. Asserting notability in this discussion has a huge point, of course it does. But this discussion is not the article. And it is the article that we are discussing. We have started the discussion with an execrable article. However well this discussion goes towards keeping the article by asserting notability inside the discussion (assuming it does so), if the article is not edited then it remains an execrable article. This deletion discussion is irrelevant to the reader of the encyclopaedia. A casual reader will not come here after this discussion is closed (if the article is kept), they will look at the unimitigated rubbish that the article has been allowed to be, if the article is not edited. You have encouragement from me in spades. Go to it and create a decent article from the appalling mess that is there. Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply a content issue, not a notability one. Just because an article on a notable topic doesn't yet have content that proves notability doesn't magically make the topic non-notable. It just means that content should eventually be in the article. I don't support the "we have to destroy it in order to save it" logic. --Oakshade 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the standard is verifiability and availability of reliable sources, assuming that it's at least marginally notable, and as a major medical center in the northeast Bay Area, that should be self-evident. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Just because the page is a stub, doesn't it is not notable. Chris! _{my talk} 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the entry is notable ( per Oakshade). This is the type of content that people look up in an encyclopedia. It is being actively worked on to improve it now so I'm hopeful it will eventually be a nice article. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park (although I can't tell if any of the original buildings are there any more). The hospital, as an institution, sounds like it's had a significant impact within the community. I'm not convinced that the listing of services is all that notable, though; some surgery (ha!) should probably be performed on the article to excise any bits of unnecessary content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:24, 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. — TKD::Talk 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egerland

This article is full of historical nonsenses, it is supported by the map from World War II period (1938-1945) only. There is not any additional reference except that map. I tried to search for references on google but I didn't find any relevant information. I suggest its deletion and merging of some information to Karlovy Vary Region. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source. Egerland, which was an independent fief until the 14th century, gets plenty of results on Google Books (e.g. egerland+region, to avoid the personal name), and lends its name to a particular breed of cattle. If merged to anything it should be Eger aka Cheb. --Dhartung | Talk 16:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two inter-wiki links from this page, one to the German wikipedia, and one to the Roumanian one. Checking the edit logs of all three revealed that one editor was active on both the English and German wikis, the Roumanian article being written by anonymous users, however there were a number of other editors who contributed to both the German and English wikis and there appears to be no pattern of collusion to perpetuate a hoax.

We are not meant to set store on a topics notability or veracity on how many hits there are on Google however searching for Egerland on Google 111,000 hits, it has to be conceded that many of these are to individuals surnamed "Egerland" and a band called "Egerland" however prominent among the other google hits were this and this website, the first a Czech and the second a German one. These two websites suggest that a region called 'Egerland' did exist and it is seen as a lost German state by some. Of course this doesn't preclude that these websites are the work of nationalist crackpots with an agenda to follow.

Searching on English Wikipedia for "Egerland" returns mentions in 16 different articles. Mention is made of an "Egerland" dialect, land borders, and a historical Central European region, establishing a pattern that suggests the existence of a historical but now defunct Germanic region. Of course we are not meant to use Wikipedia itself as a source, but this again suggests that "Egerland" existed, or at the very least that "Egerland" in the minds of some individuals.

Given that "Egerland" exists in two other wiki-projects I set about to see if other wikiprojects had "Egerland" articles. A search of French Wikipedia returned an article on the Germanic Bavarii tribe, Egerland being described as part of an historical territory of this tribe from which they were ethnically cleansed in the aftermath of the Second world war (q,v.). Search of the Spanish Wikipedia returned an article on the Vogtland although a redlink the mention of "Egerland" in this article contends that this territory was a Germanic one now incorporated into the Czech republic (q.v.). Egerland also appears in a Polish list and in two Czech Wikipedia articles this one and this one; articles that the nominator is better able to read than me.

A search on Wikicommons found 5 items, one being a photograph of a building clearly showing the word Egerland on its signage. Three of these items were maps, two versions being essentialy the one in the English article of more interest however was the deletion logs of a copyvio map with exactly the same title. From this detail I can surmise that the following happened, an older copyrighted map was used on the German Egerland article, and when this had to be removed a low quality map was created by German Wikipedia editors base on the copyvio one, subsequently an English version of this map was used for English wikipedia (it should be easy to check if this is true by having another look at the article logs). This means that even if the "Egerland" map is a fabrication it is not the fabrication of Wikipedia editors.

From my research I conclude that although archaic and defunct, "Egerland" as a region existed and is still referred to as such by some, I suppose in much the same way that a Brit will refer to Mercia or Wessex though these regions are long dead. I do not believe that deletion is in order.KTo288 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KTo288 and Dhartung. The sources do exist if not always in English. Let's not let systemic bias prevent us from using non-English research tools. --Oakshade 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a scholarly source, just what I had on hand, but my copy of the 1996 edition of The Rough Guide to the Czech and Slovak Republics seems to support most of what is asserted in the article, that Eger is the German name for the city of Cheb, given to it by german colonists in the eleventh century and the Egerland the district around it. That the city and its surrounding lands were essentially independent until the 19th century, that the german populaion were hostile to the formation of a Czech identity, that they supported the Nazis and were driven from the area in the aftermath of WW II —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 11:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Sorry forgot signature againKTo288 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a good article to me--Zingostar 19:25, 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 Delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jupiter (planet)

This article details an aspect of a planet classification system that is only theoretical, and the concept is already detailed at Appearance of extrasolar planets. Furthermore, the term "Blue Jupiter" is not used in the literature, the term used instead is "clear". The article contains much uncited speculation and gives far more validity to a purely theoretical classification system than is necessary. Chaos syndrome 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it is a legitimate term, I don't know. The title is misleading; that may be the reason this isn't a popular term, because of the confusion. Geez, who is it who's so dull that they have to call any big planet "a Jupiter"? Mandsford 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chaos syndrome is correct.— JyriL ^talk 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:50, 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. --Core desat 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jawa Report

Fixing malformed nom. Page was deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nom's comments were: "one of 100s of political blogs & not even high ranking trafic out of 1000s, wikipedia is not a web directory and article is of a low quality Standabove 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)". This comment was previously attached to the page's original AfD from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage of this blog. SALT is deemed necessary to prevent recreation Corpx 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant in-depth sources - one passing mention in an article is all we have, and there seems to be very little except blogs. Maybe as a consequence, most of the content isn't actually about the Jawa Report. --Huon 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Eyrian 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Google news attempted to censor this blog from its google news service but was quickly forced to recant. This subject was covered in depth by the American Thinker in this article [16]. Nick mallory 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site was subject of 2005 controversy related to Google censorship and is a notable news blog site .--CltFn 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Google censorship attempt is indeed covered in depth. Unfortunately, the Jawa Report isn't. For example, all we learn from the source given by Nick mallory except about Google bias is that [t]he Jawa Report focuses a great deal of attention on terrorist issues and how they relate to radical Islam. That's a passing mention only, and confirms only the article's first sentence. That's not as bad as it seems, though, because major parts of the article speak of Jawas and the owner's pen name, but not of the Report itself. The Jawa Report is already used as an example in Google Censorship, but the blog itself is not notable per WP:WEB. Even worse, practically everything except that one sentence and the Google incident is either unsourced or (in case of the Alexa ranking) even wrong. --Huon 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant; rare coverage by blog-watch columns, likes Slate magazine's.--Kitrus 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable blog. Italia^vivi 20:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St.Nicholas Primary School, Carrickfergus

Non-notable. Wieslaw Szczech 14:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments Corpx 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ordinary local school which has very little context/content and does not assert notability and has no categories either.--JForget 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not establish notability or context. After searching I could not find few sources which could establish verification either. Camaron1 | Chris 10:36, 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, nothing presented to show that they meet WP:MUSIC at this time. --Core desat 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand ole party

Prod removed by editor. Non-notable band not meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC WebHamster 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good number of edits, I see no reason for the deletion of this stub. Just because it is not notable for you does not mean that it is not notable for someone. - Fosnez 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own preferences don't come into it, you have no idea what I personally find notable. The article simply doesn't meet the laid down criteria in WP:MUSIC. WebHamster 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to establish that they are about to embark on a national tour. I think that's good enough for notability under WP:MUSIC even if the standard is technically that they have already been on the tour. It makes no sense to delete now and then have notability cemented a few weeks from now when they make their first move from west coast to east coast on the tour. Erechtheus 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They assert that they are to tour, but they don't provide any 3rd party verification to say that they are. This is an AFD so assertion isn't the criteria. I also noted that it was a technicality and had they provided independent verification I wouldn't have instigated the AFD. That is the closest they get to WP:MUSIC so really it isn't even borderline without verification. WebHamster —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Comment. This isn't the band asserting they're about to tour -- it's a music information website with a six year history asserting they're about to tour. Here is another instance of the tour information. Erechtheus 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was based on the article. The article doesn't cite any verification. It's not my responsibility to track down what the article's editor should have done. WebHamster —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Comment. This is a discussion about whether there should be an article. It's not a critique of whether or not you should have made a nomination. I will tell you that many here do expect that you will check out whether there are easily accessible sources that justify the claims in the article, but I'm not in that camp. I don't think you were wrong to nominate the article, but I don't think it would be right to delete it given what I have uncovered. Erechtheus 16:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable, not even close. If they become the new Nirvana, a page can be created again. No independent references to charting, international touring, etc. MarkinBoston 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Becoming the new Nirvana is not even close to being the appropriate measure of what makes a band notable. Please review WP:MUSIC. Erechtheus 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept should be moved to Grand Ole Party (capitalised). the wub "?!" 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not quite sure how "gone on a national tour" in WP:MUSIC is to be interpreted, but I found this source which claims that they "will be opening for" someone else's tour. Given that their debut album will be available soon, this looks a little funny. Anyway, if kept, move to correct capitalization per the wub. -- Huon 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music notability criteria. Maybe bring back when national tour and proof of such has occurred (not will occur) has been established with 3rd party reliable sources. Any one can upload to Google video and have a MySpace page so those links are simply promotional and not considered reliable sources. No other proof exists within this article. ♫ Cricket02 17:55, 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 delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal Robinson

Prod removed. Non-notable indy wrestler, never wrestled in any top promotion. Davnel03 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any reasonable argument of notability or sources that would support such an argument. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should stay as he has been very helpful in giving me info to try to keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cak666 (talk • contribs) 15:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Reply That is not a reason that is supported by Wikipedia policy; it would help if you explained how he meets the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but echo FisherQueen's comments. It's not like this person has been in WWE, WCW, ECW or TNA, so why do they deserve an article?? Davnel03 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly ethnocentric statement. --Naha|^(talk) 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's unencylopedic and coveres a non-notable wrestler. it should be noted that Cak666 is the main contributor of this article. MPJ-DK 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 03:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie Knuckles

Prod removed. Non-notable indy wrestler, never wrestled in any top promotion. Davnel03 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; I found no sources to affirm notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ↑. --Evb-wiki 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a doubt. MPJ-DK 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 03:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 02:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical quality

Probable neologism. Only reference for this term is a book by the creator of the article, so probable failure of WP:OR. Oli Filth 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Obvious ad for a book. Although he is a professor of physics rather than the usual OR crackpot, we should only have an article on it if this theory has had some impact. Google Scholar does not find much on it. Leibniz 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this related AfD for the book's author. —David Eppstein 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to explain or establish concept, reads like WP:OR, except that it doesn't really make sense. It's more confused and baffle-gab laden than the typical OR piece, only wikilinks in body are back to the article itself. Pete.Hurd 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. The author seems to be an established scientist and I think it is an interesting idea to generalize/reformulate physical equations, but this is not (yet) notable. From the author's website: I am attempting to reformulate physics using the notion of measurable physical quality instead of the common notion of physical quantity. [17]. When other physicists start using his approach in publications, this article could be reconsidered. Han-Kwang (t) 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHS Knight

Non-notable student newspaper. Supposedly has had some awards, but I can't substantiate the claims. 51 ghits. MER-C 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as notability the article seems to be nothing more than a sentence explaining what it is followed by a list of awards Computerjoe 's talk 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 19:35, 25 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. --Core desat 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Tarantola

No real assertion of notability, nor any references. Article was created by the subject, and so is in conflict with WP:AB. Oli Filth 12:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my area at all, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but Google Scholar [18] seems to show very extensive citation of his book (772) & research papers (eg 709, 372, etc), which would seem sufficient to meet WP:PROF. I don't believe that conflict of interest is necessarily a problem if the article is neutral and the subject meets the notability threshold. Espresso Addict 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this related AfD of a concept related to one of Tarantola's books. —David Eppstein 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the whiff of vanity. A good number of citations. Leibniz 12:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although the article is created by the subject, his book 'Inverse problem theory (etc)' has a whopping 1300 citations according to ISI Web of Science. Many of is other papers are well cited too. That makes him notable IMO. Han-Kwang (t) 20:37, 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. --Core desat 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Music

Is this song even notable to have an article. Shadyaftrmathgunit 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single, not notable, not even on a studio album. I think this is recentism, as soon as the song was leaked, someone created an article for it, even though this mixtape track won't be very notable 10 years from now. --- Realest4Life 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Its not even a single. When I first sae it I was surprised that the article had not been deleted. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. There are sources that mention the song such as MTV and SOHH, but that's only within the context of the Cam'ron feud. I don't see this ever expanding into a good article. If this was on his album, it would be notable (because it would have reviews), but it's not. Spellcast 16:19, 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 no consensus. --Core desat 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior

This article was previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote but I believe Wikijunior especially lacks notability. A Google News archive search [19] only returns 5 hits, and only 1 of those seems to be from mainstream news (and it's mentioned, apparently, in an article about Web 2.0 only). I suggest that as a result Wikijunior fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. Computerjoe 's talk 12:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since when was a google news search used as a notability scale? Damn deletionists. Fosnez 14:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was using a Google News Search to show that it failed, at least, the first point of WP:WEB. And WP:NPA :P Computerjoe 's talk 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable web content. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the speedy tag, it's clearly controversial and better discussed here at AfD. the wub "?!" 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only on Wikipedia would you have people deciding whether to keep an article about a service brought to you by the same folks who brought you Wikipedia. That the administrators are letting the debate continue for several days is (a) a sign of how free the free encylopdia is, or (b) the Wikimedia Foundation asked for a measure of the average Wikipedian's intelligence. Is a readability of grade level 8 too high? Oh, gotta go... Scooby Doo is back on, and it's the one where a masked person is trying to scare people away. Mandsford 16:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wikibooks. Wikijunior is a part of Wikibooks [20]. If and when it breaks out to a separate project, with its own notability, we can recreate. the wub "?!" 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. If it weren't from the Wikimedia Foundation, we'd delete something like this on sight. --Huon 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This hard-core criticism of Wikijunior is something that I find to be totally unfounded. I agree that there is a huge need to update and improve this article, and to cite actual sources to confirm just what this is all about. As far as redirecting Wikijunior to Wikibooks, I think that is a grave mistake. There are foundational roots for Wikijunior that can show this to be a completely different Wikimedia project, even if at the moment it happens to be hosted on Wikibooks. Wikijunior follows some very different policies from Wikibooks on a few issues, and has a different development group as well... even if many Wikibooks user are involved with its development as well. How it was founded and what has been going on with its development is something worthy of note well beyond a mere Wikiproject. --Robert Horning 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a speedy keep is a bit unrealistic considering the delete 'votes' here Also, I don't see how your article comments how Wikijunior is notable. Computerjoe 's talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article about the topic is woefully inadequate about the subject doesn't make it non-notable. I would like to point out that Wikijunior is one of only a handful of registered trademarks owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikibooks, surprisingly, isn't one of them, although Wikipedia is). The domain http://www.wikijunior.org/ has been independently registered as a domain name (it currently redirect to the Wikijunior page on en.wikibooks) and a seperate project discussion page about Wikijunior exist not only on the "working" page on Wikibooks, but also on meta at meta:Wikijunior. I'm sorry these haven't been mentioned in the article, but I'm pointing this things out to show this isn't a mere Wikiproject running on Wikibooks, but has taken up bandwidth on Foundation-l and discussions of the WMF board itself. How many Wikiprojects can you name like that? There are other unique charactaristics which make this something much more distinguished and notable to certainly deserve a seperate article on Wikipedia. I'd also like to note that while my name does show up on edits of the current Wikijunior article, it is mainly grammar fixes and keeping it on my watch list to prevent vandalism... which I've reverted a couple of times. When this topic has come up about notability, my challenges to those raising the issue have been unanswered on the talk page of this article. I don't think it deserved to be made a AfD candidate without at least questioning the notability on the talk page in the first place. Hence my remark about a speedy keep. No attempt has been made by the detractors of this article or topic to engage with those who might be interested in developing this article to something more than it is right now. Furthermore, I think there is enough material to discuss this project, in a NPOV and not using original research (but using things like notes from WMF board meetings and such) to add enough material to this article making it a featured article. Certainly enough to blow away the 32K article length limit. --Robert Horning 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if it's just in mainstream media of "Web 2.0," it's still coverage. Italia^vivi 20:08, 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, given the continued delete arguments after the cleanup attempt. --Core desat 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology organizations

This is essentially a directory of telephone numbers and addresses of organisations; in my opinion, this badly fails WP:NOT#DIR. Was previously AfDed, the result was no consensus. I'm aware that other such articles exist (e.g. List of Ottawa churches), but at least they're not chock full of contact details. Oli Filth 12:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps if this was rewritten to be about the global spread of scientology it'd be ok Computerjoe 's talk 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Evb-wiki 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a directory or contact list, rather than an actual article of any sort. Nick mallory 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia isnt a telephone directory, its an encylopedia. admin please note 2 of the 3 'keeps' are Scientologists, of course they should be allowed to have a say but this should be noted.Chrisp7 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which editors are you accusing of being Scientologists, and on what grounds? The only keep votes I see here are Ombudsman, Elhector, and myself, and to my knowledge none of us are Scientologists. Furthermore, WP:ATTACK clearly forbids "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." wikipediatrix 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Chrisp7, now you've got me curious. Which 2 of the 3 people who voted "keep" do you believe are scientologists? I know I'm not, and to the best of my knowledge Wikipediatrix and Ombudsman are not either. What was your motiviation here for making this statement and where did you get your info? Do you really think someone's religious affiliation should have a bearing here? You don't have to answer these questions if you don't like. I just think you need to be a little more careful on what you say and claim here. A simple up or down vote with justification for your vote based on the content of the article is what is being asked for here, not whether or not you think certain votes are less valid because they come from people that you have misconcieved notions about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater --no valid reasons have been presented for that-- perhaps the best alternative would be to truncate or summarize the list of 'missions'. Ombudsman 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep: This list is inherently quite useful and encyclopedic, due to the often unusual or mysterious pedigree and activities of many of the organizations (e.g., Cult Awareness Network; Citizens Commission on Human Rights). Ombudsman 16:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT WP:USEFUL. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any person interested in researching any of those organizations may go to the respective articles. Also, the list is a de facto link farm.--Fahrenheit451 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although I sympathize with Om's argument that this is useful in locating the activities of the organization, this all seems to be drawn straight from the Church of Scientology's own internet sites. No secrets revealed here. Mandsford 17:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We're not a directory of Scientology organizations Corpx 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It belongs to Scientology websites or to local phonebooks, and Wikipedia is neither. --Goochelaar 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not trying to create a directory. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly Violating the WP not a directory policy.--JForget 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and a heads-up to the closing admin to please note that the delete-voters are only criticizing some the content of the article in its current state, rather than simply whether a list of Scientology organizations is inherently notable for a Wikipedia article. Which, of course, it is. If the phone-directory nature of the article offends anyone, let them dive in and remove the contact information, but the fundamental premise of the article is what we are assessing here, not the sloppy way its content is currently handled. wikipediatrix 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clear intent of this article is/was to list Scientology organization around the world, which is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Corpx 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Majority of 'deletes' are not criticizing its current some of the content but all of it - because it is simply a directory, which Wikipedia is expressly not. Chrisp7 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:Wikipediatrix here. The directory info should just be removed, along with perhaps the listings for every mission in a particular region. Instead of deleting this article should just be cleaned up to list each orginization with a small description of what they do and how they are related to other orginizations. Let's not throw out a ton of good info because there happens to be phone numbers and addresses on the page. I'm going to work on cleaning the thing up myself for a bit and I think everyone else should try editing too instead of just deleting entire articles that are useful just for bad content. Bad content can be removed on it's own without deleting the whole article. Elhector 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is useful information it would be better to do the list at another site and then include a link to it in the main article on Scientology. The topic of Scientology is covered by over 400 WP articles as it is, which is a lot relative to the importance of the subject. Steve Dufour 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article serves as a directory and does not belong on wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patently a directory and no real possibility of becoming anything other; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this list could be used for useful research and information. I just think it needs to be cleaned up and pruned a little. But still, it could be useful. I think it would be a waste to delete the article entirely. Elhector 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a directory of organisations which is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Chrisp7 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes but anything that is a violation of a wikipedia guidline can magically become a non violation as they are just guidlines. I think this is a case where the info is useful enough to people to warrant bending the guidline a little. Maybe we could remove the phone # info and reorganize this into more of a tree or chart showing how each of the orginazations are related to each other. This would no longer make it a directory but more of a giant org chart. I don't think there is a guidline against orginization charts, but I could be wrong. Again I think this info is useful due to the large ammount of orginizations tied into the CoS. Info is useful for reseach purposes. Elhector 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR. ~ Wikihermit 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ElHector has drastically overhauled the article, so this is now a completely different critter than what was nominated originally. That shouldn't matter in an AfD, necessarily, but all the delete-voters have been speaking to the content rather than the concept, so.... wikipediatrix 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WPD, your statement, "but all the delete-voters have been speaking to the content rather than the concept,"is not true. Quite a few editors here comments on the concept of a directory not being suitable for wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the content was what made it a directory. It's not supposed to be a directory, that wasn't the intention originally. The addition of bad and unecessary information to the article turned it into a directory. It no longer contains this information and the article is in the process of being overhauled to make it better and serve it's original purpose IMO. Elhector 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia should not be listing Church of Scientology branches, that is advertising. Such lists are already available on official CoS webpages, the CoS keeps them up to date, Wikipedia will not. Organisations are a different matter. Some (eg 'Sea Org') are not disputed, others (eg Cult Awareness Network) are claimed by critics to be part of the CoS but this is denied. The title is therefore itself incorrect, it is a list of alleged CoS organisations. Again, such lists exist on critical websites and there is no need for Wikipedia to repeat them. Cross references to all these organisations are made in the Scientology articles. That leaves us with the possibility that a list would be useful to Wikipedia readers and I don't think it would on balance, though I don't think Wikipediatrix's arguement to be flawed. --Hartley Patterson 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elhector's work on the page has vastly improved it. Foobaz·o< 02:39, 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. Well, being mentioned isn't independant reliable sources per WP:BIO and WP:N so this article appears to fail a fundamental test for inclusion. COI concerns also troubling. No reason this can't be recreated if references actually emerge but someone independant should do this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Komlosy

Fails WP:BIO; no independent sources given. PROD was contested with comment: "appears to be important manager". This has not been demonstrated, for all I can see. Note also that the article was edited by User:Stephen Komlosy, and by User:80.177.248.185 who uses the same edit summary as the former. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did not manage any successful act. WP:NN and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article claims he managed Lionel Bart and 3 artists who had number one hits. the wub "?!" 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the claims are supported by [21] (click the pic, though I'm not sure how independent this can be considered) and [22] (This is London article, Komlosy is mentioned midway through). IMO these are enough to establish notability. Article needs a good cleanup though. the wub "?!" 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete www.sundancetheshow.com is the website for a show that Komlosy produces - so of course he will be listed on the site as such - and I see this reference only as self-promotional and not reliable. The other reference is trivial relating mostly to his business dealings. Non-notable per WP:BIO and certainly not WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC doesn't mention managers or producers at all, but since he has been involved with many people who certainly meet WP:MUSIC, he might be considered notable. the wub "?!" 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good article. just fine--Zingostar 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards15:48, 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Chisholm School

~~Schools aren't automatically notable for all manner of reasons. This particular school/article actually asserts non-notability by the fact that it is unable to get pupils to fill its roster~~ WebHamster 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry but that last comment doesn't accurately represent the position - it is not a question of being "unable to get pupils to fill its roster" rather than the school being expanded in stages. TerriersFan 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sufficient sources can be found to establish notability. Jakew 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm persuaded by TerriersFan's work that this subject is notable. Jakew 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, and why was this article create from the requests for article creation? There are no sources! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it is sourced. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a complete lack of source material, reliable or otherwise. Clearly violates WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I have now sourced it up. This is the only through 4-18 state school in the UK. Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said the school was a national model for the future - in the UK you can't get a more notable endorsement than that! Further, highlighting the education of children with Asperger’s Syndrome, Ofsted described the school as "unique", a designation I have not seen before from them in many hundreds of Ofsted reports. TerriersFan 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's hardly an independent source. She signed off on the 25m to build the place. Sounds like political spin to me. WebHamster 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly signed off many school builds but I doubt you will be able to source a similar quote about any other school. Whatever, the article now plainly meets WP:N. TerriersFan 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for the fanfare that accompanied its establishment, even if the school itself has yet to accomplish anything much.--orlady 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Fully sourced and notability well established. Dahliarose 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by good sourcing. Davewild 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article as updated (kudos to TerriersFan!) asserts notability, and provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only had time to assess the article as mid importance. 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs)
Withdraw Nomination after the additional work done on the article the reasons for the nomination are moot, so I'ld like to withdraw the nomination. WebHamster 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:17, 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 and salt (using cascading protection).--Fuhghettaboutit 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ F00P

Obvious notability issues; requests for external sources have not been fulfilled. Further, the subject of the article also being the author is a clear conflict of interest. I had listed this as a CSD, but it has to be AfD'd instead. GlassCobra 10:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Autobio of a 13-year-old MySpace DJ. WP:NN, no WP:RS, and WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 12:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -- Mikeblas 16:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-promotional auto-biography. Accounting4Taste 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Papa November 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and SALT. Page is completely non-notable and has been speedy deleted 4 times due to lack of claims of notability: heck, I don't even see any on this recreation. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, make that 5 times. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too recommend a SALTing to the closing admin, seeing as the user has specifically stated that he intends to recreate the article if it gets deleted. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT as above. Anyone can have a MySpace page and is therefore not a reliable source to establish notability and no other proof has been provided. ♫ Cricket02 18:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silentwulf

Non-notable website that only exists to advertise and talk about their own films on YouTube. Borderline spammy WebHamster 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam-laden article about a non-notable website. Erechtheus 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:N, and WP:V. However, it does a great job of meeting WP:SPAM. Also been deleted once before. Jauerback 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanispamcruft. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, vanity. Italia^vivi 20:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Sky

WP:CRYSTAL. "rumoured, but unconfirmed", "nothing as of yet has been confirmed, it may not even be included". Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. No sources whatsoever. --Pixelface 09:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Yes I Know That you shouldn't put rumours on here I Am Sorry , I Will Not Do It again. --Surfer-boy94 09:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm in a Girls Aloud forum there's so such a single like Silver Sky --SuperHotWiki 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Self-described rumor. Crystal snowball. --Evb-wiki 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable and a particularly good example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL. Erechtheus 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 25 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 as a copyvio. the wub "?!" 10:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Belligeranza records

Label fails to establish notability/fails WP:CORP Lugnuts 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of this site, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 10:13, 25 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. --Core desat 05:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Managerzone

Contested prod. Prod reason was Fails WP:WEB, no assertions of notability. I seconded the prod, with the reasoning: There is no independent coverage shown, only a press release. Prod was contested with the comment Talk page rationale already exists. However, the discussion there seems to relate to a db-advert speedy attempt. Now I think we all agree that this isn't blatant advertising, that's not the issue here. The issue is WP:Notability. Marasmusine 09:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 09:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I admit fully the article is sans resources, I still think the subject matter is notable. I dislike the way it is being challenged using the clinical list of notability arguments. I think if we all tried to write an encyclopoedia instead of micromanaging to the maximum we would all do better. Erath 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable sources cover this, which means the article could never become a good one - even if everyone tries to write an encyclopaedia in the broad sense as Erath means. User:Krator (t c) 12:09, 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 userfy. — TKD::Talk 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Magee

Regular college professor, main contribution editor was User:Nmagee, whose user page redirects to this page. Bookandcoffee 08:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:COI. Article appears to be created by and mainly maintained by the subject himself. I assume this is a good faith mistake and not a blatant vanity page, but it still has to go. If subject is truly notable, the article will be recreated by another editor. Faithlessthewonderboy 09:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userify I change my vote. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. The conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem if the subject is notable and the article factual. However, someone whose PhD was in 2004 would have to have done something special to meet WP:PROF, and this does not appear to be the case here. Google Scholar finds 2 papers & one co-authored book in the name "NE Magee", none of which have any listed citations, so there is no evidence of body of work cited by experts. Technical editor/assistant editor are usually copy-editing roles with no inherent notability; in particular, I don't think he's considered to be on the editorial board of the journal mentioned, per [23]. Userification seems an option here. Espresso Addict 12:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify because it does seem pretty clear that the principal contributor is also the subject of the article. Erechtheus 15:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ward3001 00:24, 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. Many of the "keep" arguments are cogent and well-researched arguments for keeping our German American article (those from DGG, Mikka, Alexander Lau). Unfortunately, they are not addressing this list. Nobody is denying the ethnic group "German-American" is notable; that is not the issue at hand here; whether we ought to have a list is. Sourcing is also not a guarantor of encyclopaedic value, and so Mandsford's argument is unconvincing. Arguments to "keep as this should be discussed elsewhere" (Hmains) are also unconvincing, and the accusations of bad faith from himself and Badangani are not helpful; AFD is the designated location to discussion the deletion of articles. Previous AFDs are not helpful, as articles of this nature have been both kept and deleted, so precedent does not help us. Arguments of "it is useful" are, by now, almost universally discounted. With many of the "keep" arguments not particularly convincing, we now address the delete arguments. The principle arguments are that the list is a loose association (Corpx, Iridescent, Mad Jack are fairly convincing), the criteria for inclusion are not defined (not convincing), and that if they were complete, would be too big to be manageable (convincing). Suggestions that the list is too subjective (Carlossuarez46 says "how German must one be to be on the list?", and MarkinBoston makes a good point) are also reasonable. Arguments that the list could be replaced by a category are not convincing (Kappa dispatches these well). However, on the whole, I am far more swayed by the arguments to delete, which are better rooted in policy (Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items), particularly given the failing of most of the "keep"s to address the list in question. Neil ム 10:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Americans

Relisting per suggestions at previous mass AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans. A common argument might be "it's sourced, leave it alone" but one has to pay attention to how this is sourced. The criteria for inclusion is in an endless battle for definition. Even if we only allowed people sourced as German Americans, there would still be many reliable sources conflicting on this manner, and adding to dubious categorizations that may potentially include people completely unrelated by anything but an ancestor from Germany. Bulldog123 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with all such lists that have shown up here, and for the same reasons. As the nominator has said, it is impossible to arrive at a universally-accepted definition for inclusion, thus the list criterion is undefinable... thus the list itself violates WP:NOT#DIR. Where ethnic identity is important to a bio, it belongs in the bio article. EyeSerene^TALK 08:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would delete Category:German Americans for the same reason? Kappa 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like that this page - unlike others - is at least partially sourced. However... looking at this one: "His father, Lou Gephardt, was the grandson of German immigrants" This is a problem. One of eight great-grandparents was German, so he is German-American? I would say Keep to these lists only if you keep it to first generation immigrants or children of two first generation parents. Otherwise, people could end up on different lists - I'd be both Swedish- and Irish-American. MarkinBoston 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right, you would end up on both lists and that would just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.137.34 (talk) 19:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if you had a wikipedia article, would you consider your Swedishness as relevant to your life as Ingrid Bergman's Swedishness was? That's exactly what this list is purporting. Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:TRIVIA so your Swedishness couldn't just be "an interesting fact" as is this case for boatloads of these lists. Bulldog123 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It can be said that German-Americans are the plurality in America, ahead, even, of "English Americans"; and a lot of us have a trace of German ancestry. In the Midwest and the Plains states, they come close to being the majority. Hence, an article that could potentially describe hundreds of millions of people has to be pegged to a higher standard. And it meets the Krauteria for a well-written article quite well. It has 279 footnotes on a website where most authors don't know what a "footnote" is, and those cites have information that relates directly to the person's German roots. Good German engineering. Mandsford 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If German-Americans are a plurality in America, that's a fairly good reason not to have the list, considering how many people it would have on it. Mad Jack 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Precisely. So many American notables are likely of some German descent that we might as well just put everyone on that list who is sourced as having a single German ancestor. Why not just put the most German German-Americans who gained fame from America on German American and leave it at that. Plus we have categories for all others. Bulldog123 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The list is to document the most famous of Americans with German blood. Most of the individuals listed have mothers or fathers that are directly linked to Germany and the footnotes, for the most part, document this. If there are single individuals that you have an issue with, then target them, not the entire list. Alexander Lau 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolute list of loosely associated topics. What does having 1/8th German in you have to do with your notability? Corpx 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely ridiculous list and sets a stinkingly bad precedent for 22578 laundry-list articles (assuming 212 countries in the world) — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Far too loosely associated for a list. Mad Jack 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories should be applied here (per profession possibly).--JForget 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is part of a series of 60+ such lists just for US. Any such radical step as deleting these should be discussed in the Wiki Ethnic Groups project. Individual lists should not be targeted. Hmains 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And again, 279 footnotes... I know I've never had that many in an article, how about you guys? Mandsford 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, we talked about the "but it's sourced!!" argument to death. Bulldog123 02:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh golly gosh forgive me I guess I hate to see a well-written article deleted because the subject offends someone's sense of what belongs in an encylcopedia. As for me, I can say that I have no problem with the concept of lists of people according to their heritage and I'm voting keep because this is the quality that Wikipedia articles should have. If I make a distinction between this list and say, a "List of Elbonian-Americans", it's based on the quality of the article. If you and others are voting delete on all such "List of Blank-Americans" articles, then I praise you for staying true to your beliefs. On the other hand, if any of you have voted "Keep" on some of this type of articles and "Delete" on others, perhaps you should ask yourself why. As for myself, I can answer that question--- I judge by the quality of the writing. That, ultimately, is what good editing should be. Mandsford 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I wouldn't get too giddy about these citations. For example, check out the citation for Alma Gluck and tell me what the basis for listing her as a German-American is, exactly... [24] Mad Jack 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bad example and yes she probably has no right in being listed there, but the majority have solid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.137.34 (talk) 19:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep We just discussed this for Portuguese-Americans and it didn't pass deletion. There are certain ethnic groups that have made terrific contributions to American society and the world in general. Look at the German-American 'Entrepreneur' section alone. Most of those listed in that area are first or second generation German-Americans. Documenting them is great. If there are individuals that you feel might not deserve being mentioned, take it to the 'Talk' area. Take a look at what the Germany Embassy in Washington DC lists: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_in_hollywood.html, http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_influential.html, etc. and the US Diplomatic Misson to Germany: http://usa.usembassy.de/germanamericans.htm and http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm and such sites as German Hollywood: http://www.germanhollywood.com/. A nice list: http://www.germanhollywood.com/abc_index1.html Alexander Lau 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We also just discussed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), and that was deleted, so... Mad Jack 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying we should delete this page as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG looks like a lot of solid, statistical analysis to prove this deserves merit Alexander Lau 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of those links supports having a large list of names. Mad Jack 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it does. It shows that a certain group of immigrant people have made a substantial impact on a country and it's been proven through census. The fact remains that a large number of Americans with German blood have made strong contributions and there should be a place to document those individuals. If there is an issue with an individual, in particular, then argue for that person's deletion. The vast majority of the individuals in this list have sources next to their names and are legit. Alexander Lau 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many male people have also greatly contributed to the United States. Should we have a List of American males? Mad Jack 09:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The German embassy pages are quite interesting: the number one influential "German American" is Albert Einstein, who was stripped of his German citizenship, and under the Nuremberg laws not considered a German at all, showing how shifting ethnic identity can be and how triviallly useless this list is. Carlossuarez46 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Under this (ridiculous and illogical) reasoning, Gioachino Rossini was not really an opera composer, as he wrote no operas between 1830 (at age 38) and his death in 1868 (at age 76). Badagnani 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alexander Lau et al. Bearian 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to know why you found List of English Americans worthy of deletion but not List of German Americans. Bulldog123 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you Bulldog123, I don't think it's fair to list one group and restrict another. By leaps and bounds, the English have contributed much to the United States in comparison to other groups listed. Seems odd to me. Alexander Lau 06:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - encyclopedic, well sourced (279 footnotes) 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 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Ethnic identity is a major part of countries such as the U.S. Rmhermen 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the reasons at hand. I can't find a single person who put "Delete - ethnic identity is not an important part of US culture" Bulldog123 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom.Rex 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same problems all these ethnic lists suffer from: how "German" must one be to be on the list? What WP:RSes tell us that the individual is at least that much German, and is being that much German any different from being just a little less German? Also, German is both an ethnicity and a nation, so German-Americans could include ethnic members who have never been to German, spoken German and have non-German names, and also people of non-German backgrounds who are from Germany and later became Americans. So ultimately not defining, POV, and largely OR. And why is WP in the business of categorizing people by race and ethnicity anyway? Carlossuarez46 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without wishing to appear to be pointing out the obvious, "why is WP in the business of categorizing people by race and ethnicity anyway"?" represents an extreme point of view that is, thankfully, generally regarded as such (a ridiculous, fringe position). Unfortunately, editors with such bias can be very, very destructive. Badagnani 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these huge lists of people or places that reasonably have no end shouldn't be articles. They serve no purpose and if complete would contain thousands of names, which isn't reasonable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It`s useful for editors, ( historically ) interesting and it doesn`t harm anybody! --Sushi Leone 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I don't generally hold with quoting WP:ATA, you may want to have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM at this point — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comment by Sushi Leone was clearly made in good faith and these essays you cite are clearly written by individuals with extreme ideologies such as yourself. Don't try to negate his/her comment by continually citing these idiotic essays, thanks. Badagnani 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment While WP:ATA is an essay, not policy, you might want to have a look at its history before launching wild personal attacks on its authors. (Just what is this "extreme ideology", anyway? I find it hard to imagine any ideology shared by HisSpaceResearch, Melsaran, Radiant! and W.marsh, for instance.) I have yet to see a satisfactory answer as to how this (or any of these other racial-classification lists) satisfies the Manual of style guidelines for lists - namely: "If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?; Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?; Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's very clear: I and many others use these lists in our research. You are apparently attempting to delete/blank this data from Wikipedia, in complete disregard of the editors who have spoken up in this regard. One editor even states an extreme position that we should not describe people based on their ethnic origin. You may *wish* that such a thing as a German American didn't exist, and that everyone was simply an "American," but such a thing does exist, and we are documenting it. We can discuss hypothetical German Americans, or we can discuss real German Americans and their contributions to the United States (with voluminous sources and footnotes, which have already been provided). Sorry, I don't think it's possible to be more clear about the highly damaging nature such deletion/blanking has on our project. Badagnani 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not answering the question, though - why does this need a separate list, especially given that List of English-Americans has been deleted? Few, if any, of these people are famous for being German-American. I can't understand why this - and every similar list - wouldn't work just as well as a category; if the German ancestry is genuinely important to their life, it belongs in their biography and not on a separate list page as a content fork. Articles like this will either always be woefully incomplete, or an indiscriminate list of information. There is also the issue that (while not in itself a reason for deletion) the criteria for inclusion at present are far too vague - I've never seen anything to indicate that Tom Cruise, for example, considers himself German in any way, while if we're going to go back to the "one of his ancestors was born in Germany but moved to America in 1709" level (as with Walter Chrysler) the list could probably include at least 25% of the population; applying the Chrysler argument would result in Prince William being considered Hungarian via Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - >"Few, if any, of these people are famous for being German-American." Well, I'm not sure where you are coming from? There are plenty of individuals that are documented in the German-American list that either learned their crafts in Germany or were taught by first generation Germans in the United States. Albert Einstein, Wernher von Braun, Emile Berliner, Henry J. Heinz, Henry Muhlenberg (Pioneer of Lutheranism), The Beer Barons (http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/german-americans/g-a_beer_barons.html) (Busch, Coors, Anheuser, Miller, etc.), etc., etc. Take a look at the American Civil War Veterans and their education in German Armies. *Again, if there is an inndividual that you don't deem worthy, then nominate them for deletion, but keep the list. Alexander Lau 23:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You’ve got me! No problem - I can be convinced by good arguments! So I withdraw two of my points but I still think that those lists are basically a good research tool for writer/editors. --Sushi Leone 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Further to the above, I - and I presume most, if not all, of the delete !voters - aren't saying ignore the fact altogether, but to ensure the appropriate articles are in Category:German Americans - that way, anyone who did want to use it as a research tool would still have all the names together. In all honesty, the list as it stands is so indiscriminate that I can't see who'd use it. Regardless of whether the list's kept or it goes to a category, it desperately needs to be trimmed to only those people who identify themselves or are identified as German, otherwise List of German Americans, List of Irish Americans, List of African Americans and List of Mexican Americans would between them likely catch close to 100% of the population, with many people falling into all four — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all ethnic groups are notable, and this includes "hypenated-Americans"; the definition is possible because it can be self-identification without use having to worry about whether true or false--we're about V, not truth, as I recall; people placing themselves in an ethic group are a close relationship--not as close a biological parentage, but perhaps as close as geography or college attended; lists like these serve a useful function, and so on, as discussed at all the other Afds. I would say that every individual one of them being proposed for deletion here so far is justified and keepable. DGG (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources have been presented for why classification of people in America by ethnic or national origin is notable and significant. While there may be some disagreement over whether this should list every notable American with verifiable German heritage, or only those Americans who have at least one full-German parent, or only people who are identified as German-Americans in reliable sources, or only people who verifiably self-identify as German-Americans, or only those Americans whose German heritage itself is a notable aspect of their identity, etc., etc., this does not constitute a reason to delete. I fully believe that discussion on the article's talk page can come to a consensus for reasonably objective and verifiable inclusion criteria which balances comprehensiveness with maintainability. Improve, don't destroy. DHowell 06:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list has existed for about two years and there is always a continual battle for inclusion so I don't believe there could ever be a consensus for exactly who qualifies. Further, if the by-occupation categories would be overcategorization, then I don't see how the by-occupation divisions in this list aren't trivial. With the category Category:German Americans there usually is a written justification in the article for why this is a relevant category. Doing that in this list seems burdernsome and unnecessary. Bulldog123 10:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator apparently thinks categorizing people as German-Americans is acceptable... "Plus we have categories for all others". If there can be criteria for a category, there can be criteria for a list. The list has the advantage of being able to explain, with references, exactly how that person satisfies the criteria. Plus it has the usual advantages of being formattable and annotatable, which this list exploits very well. Also I don't want to see a list of German Americans in German American I'd rather have it separate. I don't particularly mind this list being restricted to first or second generation immigrants. Kappa 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and who ever said that Germans stopped coming to the United States, to live, in the first place? There are plenty of well-documented sources proving that immigration persists until this day, but here is a more modern link: http://www.deutsche-in-amerika.net Alexander Lau 13:39, 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. Doesn't seem connected enough to O'Brian to justify it being a redirect to him, and the original production has no article.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mephistopheles Smith

Non-notable production. (The musical itself might qualify for an article.) Productions on the Edinburgh Fringe are most definitely not automatically notable - even I have performed there! -- RHaworth 07:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard O'Brien. There appears to be enough interest online as demonstrated by search engine results to support this as a proper redirect even though I would agree those same results do not yield anything in the way of reliable sources that would cement notability. The O'Brien article already goes into the subject in enough depth for this to be a viable suggestion. Erechtheus 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added a BBC preview about the show, which adds some notability. Crazysuit 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or merge & redirect to Richard O'Brien, Johnbod 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable programme.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" This is a seperate production in its own right, not particularly for its own merits but the fact it was given special permission by O'Brien. Also, it would be nice to have this alone and elaborate it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutty girl 2001 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract house

Protologism. May be too new to be verifiable. Alksub 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NEO, WP:CITE, no argument or evidence of notability, and unless I'm guessing wrong, it's really just an advert for some group or individual called "Watchmen" that doesn't have its own wikipedia article (and is apparently no relation to the 90s Canadian group as far as I can see). Best guess: garage band is thinking to use wikipedia to get out the word and maybe someday they'll get a gig and move out of their parents' basement. Sorry if that's rude, but that's the impression this article gives. -Markeer 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep These people are kind of nutty with their constant genre creation, (deep acid house, anyone?) but there are references online. MarkinBoston 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless refs that put it above WP:NEO are found Corpx 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the article creator just blanked both the article and it's talk page, so... -Markeer 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ♫ Cricket02 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't even any citations. Salvatore22 01:41, 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. --Core desat 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Labs Model Numbers

Prod was removed by User:70.51.11.182, who also spammed it up a notch with a pile of mergeto tags. This is an indiscriminate collection of information without references or any real value. Mikeblas 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INTERESTING, but more suited to a gamer aficiando website, or some electronic sales outlet, or something. I would like to see this list live on somewhere, but not on Wikipedia. spazure
(contribs)
- Comment. Let me suggest the Creative Labs website as an appropriate place. -- Mikeblas 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(review) 08:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP is not a directory of model numbers Corpx 09:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spazure Computerjoe 's talk 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could this deletion logic be used on articles such as List of products manufactured by ASUS? Oli Filth 13:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this noob editor's opinion, that's a resounding yes. Feel free to nominate. spazure (contribs) (review) 13:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge as per the numerous merge tags indicate, and then redirect to Creative Technology or Sound Blaster. This is good information, but agree it is tough to justify as a stand-alone list, so the information should probably should be on the various product pages. DHowell 06:22, 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. --Core desat 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Misuzu

Was put up for Speedy, then Prod as non notable. . Seems AfD more appropriate. Ghits [25] are minimal. This wiki article [26] shows that this person is one of a number in the troupe, not the main star. Delete or redirect to Takarazuka Revue#Other_performers_in_the_company. SilkTork 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I renamed the Other performers section from Other notable stars... while doing this AfD: [27] SilkTork 12:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. Not Notable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not that Ghits are important, but, more than 10,000 come up with her Japanese name. Single profile/interviews from a newspaper and a weekly tv show are probably enough to assert notability. But, note that the TV show apparently has one member of the troupe on each week; and, the feature article is from a similar series. While that level of coverage probably denotes a certain level of fanaticism in Japan for the troupe, it may be difficult to meter it against Wikipedia's notability guidelines for individuals. Neier 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am going to fix the page to be more preferable....but it takes time.... Cougarwalk 21:02, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Keep per Neier, who seems to have established basic notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:25, 21 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, Sandstein 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO.Harlowraman 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as any individual member of say a major Western theatre company, that the majority of sources are in Japanese and inaccesible does not diminish notability.KTo288 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn (for now). The MXTV link above is vacuous, and the other link above is a short piece for a sports tabloid. I wish her well in her career; perhaps she'll later merit an article here. -- Hoary 07:24, 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 delete. --Core desat 05:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axielijst

Rejected db-bio. My db-bio reason: the article contains no apparent or asserted importance or significance of the subject. Axielijst is a squatter activist group with one seat on local council in the 7th largest city in The Netherlands, and has no wider political presence. Search hits for the party are minimal in count and content, offering no clear reliable sources to further establish notability or significance via the admin's suggested "expansion and cleanup" of the current 2-line article. This seems an issue better addressed via explanatory sentence(s) on Axielijst in the Haarlem city article at the existing local government section. I recommend Merge to Haarlem. Michael Devore 07:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, and WP:ORG. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all political parties with any significant notice are notable, and I would certainly extend t his to any having an actual seat on even a major municipal city council. (or a state or provincial legislature). The election undoubtedly produced sources, so it should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, as Wikipedia documents, notability is insufficient of itself for an article. Given the lack of detailed reliable sources, the party fits easily back into the main Haarlem article with no loss of information or failure to notice the party's current notability. There is direct precedent for this, as two of the other local government parties on the same list of local government seats in Haarlem are without their own article (and further contain no additional detail, as Axielijst would possess following a merge). I think a merge fits better here. Failing that, a Dutch-speaking individual who has access to better archives might be able to shape an encyclopedic article on Axielijst, which I would support. Right now, this article isn't it. Michael Devore 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia also documents, proposals to merge don't belong on AfD. If you want to merge, withdraw this nomination, be bold and do the merge yourself, or discuss it on the article's talk page. DHowell 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so simple after a failed speedy; there could easily be a perception of bypassing a decision to achieve the result. Though not officially described as such, a merge is a subset of deletion as others have commented on in the past (merge and delete, or delete and merge, AfD recommendations are common enough to be warned against and still happen). In any case, I believe I have been sufficiently bold on Wikipedia on other articles to be somewhat less so here, in light of the contested action. Michael Devore 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (do not delete), per nom. DHowell 02:35, 22 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, Sandstein 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 'party' with one seat on one city council doesn't cut it as far as political notability goes. Nick mallory 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Jakew 12:27, 25 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. The flaw here is the lack of a clear objective criteria for entry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the best ever

The list has been regarded as incomplete and poor by several users, with the exception of a few who maintain the article is still 'good'. Another user proposed the deletion, another seconded this motion, and the afd tag was placed in the article. Zchris87v 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Criteria for inclusion isn't clear enough. How notable does the poll/media outlet have to be to get mentioned? A somewhat rigged voting campaign once got the Anthem of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen to the top of a Canadian radio poll, but does that make it a "best ever"? Also why limit it to songs in English? Nel Blu Dipinto Di Blu, 99 Luftballons, Sukiyaki and (I can't believe I'm about to do this...) Ça plane pour moi all made some "best ever" lists in English speaking countries in their day. Dbromage [Talk] 06:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And Comment. Any truly notable poll results (eg. from national rather than local media outlets) can be included in the individual song pages. Dbromage [Talk] 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too faulty. The polls are too unreliable to make the songs "Best ever". --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misread the title. It isn't "List of best ever songs in English", rather "List of songs in English LABELED the best ever" (emphasis added). The page makes no claims about the quality of the songs or the polls. Duggy 1138 00:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you explain how this is encyclopedic? Your reply is appreciated. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could have sworn that I participated in an AfD on this article, but turns out that was for something else. Anyway, the problem here is that this is essentially a collection of "Best Song Ever" pronouncements from disparate sources and that amounts to a novel synthesis of information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion hawks are missing the point. This is not a list of "the best songs ever". It's a list of songs cited as best ever by a publication or person of public interest. As such it says more about the citer than the cited. This is why it is sociologically significant. I doubt i would would agree with either George Bush or Commentary magazine on the "best song". But i would like to know what they think. Where else would i find out? If there is a problem with this article, it is too few contibutions to the list.--Ed andrews 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's random and trivial who may have made such meaningless throwaway comments. Beorhtric 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Can you give examples from the page? Duggy 1138 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relucant delete This could warrant a list. However, in its current state it seems to me that it gets included if it is ranked highly anywhere. If there were strict, good criteria for inclusion, then this would be worthwile. i ^said 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is pretty much just a list of songs that have appeared near the top of random polls and lists. At the end of the day, the topic is subjective, even with sources/references. --musicpvm 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of "subjectivity" of the subject, this is a list of what has been labelled such. We are not making a value judgement here, but rather saying what significant polls/whatevers to be the "best song ever". I don't think this page is biased; looking at the list of songs, this is pretty much exactly what I'd expect and they all consistantly show up at the top of polls. So I don't think this page is problematic as long as criteria for inclusion are clear. Titanium Dragon 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as there are reliable sources used for such labels. (An Internet poll is not a source for such a label; a chart created by a respected magazine is, for example.)--Svetovid 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To address so points: How notable does the poll have to be? It just has to be a poll. But when there is "debate" over the result is is usually easy to cite a source mentioned that, eg. Chasing Cars by Snow Patrol is on the list because it topped a national radio poll, but it is also noted that it has been called an example of "fad voting." Why just English songs? I'm not sure, it happened before I found it, however, my guess is since this is an English Language Wiki to stop the list being 5 times longer and including polls from 70 non-English speaking countries, but why is the language important anyway? The similar page that was deleted? Yeah, I nominated that deletion because that list was vague. It wasn't a list of best ever songs, but rather songs that appeared somewhere near the top of polls. The song has to be #1 on a poll to appear on this list (thus The Best Ever). Near the top? No. At the top and only at the top. You're thinking of another (now deleted) page. Duggy 1138 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could end up as a good source of information.--Borgarde^talk 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can never be trustworthy, therefore no-one should use it, therefore it should not exist. Beorhtric 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hirohistat. Jonj onbt 23:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Harlowraman 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything has sources on it. And comment: what about it's sister page List of songs in English labeled the worst ever? Lugnuts 09:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument. Dbromage [Talk] 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You missed the point completly. Lugnuts 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any pile of nonsense can be sourced, but this is a diversion for a music chat room, not a legitimate encyclopedia article. Golfcam 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the page is sourced but there's no telling where it stopped. Country Weekly named Garth's "The Dance" as the greatest song of all time in 1994 -- and they're a notable publication, so does that mean it can or can't be included? The criteria are too loose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 10:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Computerjoe 's talk 12:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list with impermissibly broad criteria. I do hope somebody refines the criteria and gives this another try, though. There should be a place here for a good list of songs that, for instance, professional music critics have cited as the best ever. Erechtheus 15:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree that a lot of people are missing the point. This isn't a Top 10 list or the viewpoint of any of the contributors to the article. If you don't know the criteria, I'll explain it... there are different magazine articles, polls, etc., that had subjective opinions that something is "the best ever", and one song was on top of that list (There are no #2's mentioned). While I don't agree that "Live Forever" by Oasis was the best song ever, there was at least one readers' poll in a magazine that came to that conclusion, once upon a time. In a fashion more scholarly than one usually finds in Wikipedia, this cites to the source in each instance... a readers' poll, a measure of sales, etc. And well-researched and sourced articles are what an encyclopedia should be about. Mandsford 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Point taken Mandsford, but take into consideration where we draw the line of what magazines polls qualify for this list. That is certainly going to make this list become over large. I mean soon you could have a school newspapers opinion on what is the best song ever. This is also in my opinion WP:LISTCRUFT. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I see your point, but I tend to believe that "the system works". Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume that editors would keep out the nonsense. You are correct that there is nothing to stop someone from adding the result from a school newspaper; nor is there something to stop anyone from adding "Kilroy Was Here" to an article about Martin Luther King, Jr.; however, there is nothing to stop the next editor from removing something that doesn't belong in the article. We are our own groundskeepers, and I think there are enough people who to keep this lawn mowed. Mandsford 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "the songs listed here have achieved a notable level of fame, through critical and popular consensus." I'd delete the school news paper entry with the note "Not notable enough" Duggy 1138 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Labelled the best ever by whom? Inclusion criteria not well defined and would be difficult to narrow down. See "Criteria for inclusion in lists" at Wikipedia:lists. --Coppertwig 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Labelled by critics and polls.
Keep. A lot of people want to delete it because they haven't read the introduction: "the songs listed here have achieved a notable level of fame, through critical and popular consensus." Duggy 1138 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is trivial, unencyclopedic, pointless, drivel. It's impossible to make the list complete, and its a poor cross-reference. Each song's article can have its mention in the article, but this needs to go away.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep there's really no point in deleting it, it's like films considered greatest ever or television series considered greatest ever. User:AKR619 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 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. --Core desat 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown Mall

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Has also been tagged for neutrality for a long time with no improvement whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:N, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - notability requires multiple, independent sources attesting that there is something special or different about this mall (i.e. notable) or that something newsworthy happened here. This article has none of these. Simply existing or being a large mall is not enough. Bridgeplayer 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a super-regional mall per the ISCA standards, with 1,010,400 square feet of gross leasable area, per a ref I added to the article. There are 454 news stories which could be used to improve and expand the article per the Google News search [28]. Many of these are run of the mill every-day events, but some go into greater detail on the history , arguably poor siting choice, and impact of the mall on its region and beyond. Someone with university library privileges or a subscription to a news archive could get through the annoying subscription barrier to determine which articles have more in depth coverage. [29] from 2004 looks like in depth coverage, as does [30] and [31]. Edison 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the super-regional size and scope, and based on the precedents set in a string of recent AfDs for retention of such articles. Alansohn 03:23, 19 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, Sandstein 05:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Size ≠ notability. Significant coverage from reliable sources = notabiliy. This does not have it. i ^said 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Another non-notable mall. Yeesh! :P Faithlessthewonderboy 08:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size does determine notability, which - given that Wikipedia is supposed to be a practical reference source for real people, rather than an academic exercise - is a reflection of how many people are likely to be interested in looking something up. Golfcam 09:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIG. --B. Wolterding 12:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sure its big but so what? Its a mall but we are not a shopping directory. What is notable about it? Has there been a notable murder here, or robbery, or circus held here or a nude painting festival or anything notable or interesting? Bridgeplayer 23:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a somewhat larger non notable mall. --Stormbay 02:24, 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 Nomination withdrawn. ELIMINATORJR 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Hill Galleria

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS. Article was tagged for notability early on but tag was removed on the editor's premise that all malls are notable. Only changes over time have been shift in ownership (from General Growth to Jones Lang LaSalle) and my personal discovery that the mall once had a Phar-Mor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, but can't close per WP:DPR#NAC. The sources provided are enough to expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing notable about this mall at all. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I've driven past it and haven't even noticed. Article has no substance either, and violates WP:NOT (directory). Zchris87v 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Arguments says "I never noticed it " are not valid reason for deletion. Having multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliables sources satisfies WP:N. Regional mall with 692,367 sq ft of gross leasable area per official site (some articles say 471,000, perhaps excluding freestanding store on property). Typical news coverage can be found at Google News. Developer plans mall, 1989 [32] , planners ok it 1989 [33] ,construction begins 1990 [34] ,construction continues 1990 [35] , Grand opening 1991,[36] , [37] , Santa fired for being female 1992 [38] , expansion in 1994 [39] ,debate over smoking ban 1995 [40] , stores can't open until 1:30 pm on Sunday because of "blue laws 2000 [41] , burglary 2001 [42] , new owners learning local market 2003 [43] , Sears remodeled 2003 [44] , shoppers consider it "lame" and needing revitalization 2004 [45] , new owner 2004 [46] ,Makeover 2004[47] , manager refuses to allow Salvation Army to set up kettles and ring bells, 2005 [48]. Owners plan more renovation to counteract "struggling and stale" image 2005 [49] . More deserving than some which have been kept. less notable than others. Edison 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "I have never noticed" was not my entire argument; as mentioned, it violates the policy that wikipedia is not a directory. Zchris87v 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep regional size and extensive sources available (as above) bespeak notability. Alansohn 21:21, 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, Sandstein 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless someone can give a convincing argument as to why all those sources should be ignored. Ichormosquito 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, withdrawn nomination. I'm closing this as a "no consensus", seeeing as a.) I withdraw my nomination, and b.) there have been delete votes so I can't close it as a keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 10:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have overturned the above closure per WP:DPR#NAC. Editors must not close AfD in which they have participated. Sandstein 11:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as written is not notable. It is up to the editors to improve the article by meeting WP:V and WP:RS. If the article fails then it needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian 05:47, 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. The idea that tracks will "probably" be added later doesn't satisfy anything. --Core desat 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersmith Palais 19:5:85

Not notable, no references TotesBoats 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no songs for the A side, none for the B side, and there are no C sides to a cassette. Nothing notable. i ^said 06:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge I'm not convinced this album even exists. Assuming it does, it appears to be a non-notable album from a notable band. Therefore, I'd say merge per WP:MUSIC. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tracks will probably be added by a user later when they discover they are missing and they own the tape - this is how the wiki was supposed to work, enough with the rampant deletionism. Fosnez 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to show existence, much less notsability. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, the title seems to be wrong; this page (which the article seems to be based on) gives it as just "Hammersmith Palais". -- Huon 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I own the tape so can add the tracks if kept - but this is a semi-official ROIO tape that they sold on the T-shirt stall at gigs in the late 80s, and not any kind of bona fide release. As per similar AfDs, most notably on Pink Floyd, we only keep entries on such things if there's an outstandingly significant reason to keep them, and I can't see one here — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:33, 25 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. --Core desat 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topher Villafane

His main claim to fame is being the head of an unremarkable production company. None of the claims in this article can be verified by reliable sources. Searching for his name and any of his movies yields MySpaces. I'm also nominating a few other related articles because meatpuppets kept removing the speedy templates and I'd like to deal with this Wiki-empire in one fell swoop. --Bongwarrior 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete them all I speedied Charlotte Gillis last night as an A7, no assertation of notability and I still stand by that since the only references to her fame are MySpace and the blog of a local newspaper, not the actual newspaper itself. I just deleted HollyWood East (2006 film) since it was a duplicate article of HollyWood East. Make it go away. Keegan^talk 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the "Charlotte" page, I made edits to the "Topher" page and I feel the whole "dealing with the wiki-empire" is unwarranted. The Topher page had been looked at by another administrator and they had no problem with it other than one link that has been since removed. I am in the process, of getting the links for "more notable sources" and I have attempted to convey that. But instead because of someones problem with one of the pages. They are trying to take them all down "in one fell swoop". I removed the "Charlotte" page (as best I could). The other two I am waiting for the link that I need to post. Please take this into consideration. I am new to wikipedia and I am trying. I am not the submitter of all of them, but I am knowledgable on the subjects, so I am going to take the responsibility of fixing them to wikipedias liking.--Lailajames 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Lailajames. The issue is with the notability of the subjects. We are an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminant collection of information. The result of this is not eveyone who has done something merits inclusion into this project. We welcome new articles, but there are ideas behind what we're doing here. There are not reliable sources going to the verification of notability. At present time, I fail to see how this can change. If the subjects of the deletion nomination are successful in a significant way in the future, then we can have articles on them. Keegan^talk 07:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alll. If nothing else for blatant sock puppetry. -- RHaworth 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have other links to publish but I am awaiting to recieve them from another party, so they can all be added to the page in question in one fell swoop --Lailajames 14:10, 25 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 speedy delete. — Moe ε 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preschool Tea party massacre (band)

Non-notable band. No reliable sources, no verifibility, no service. — Moe ε 05:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There might be some sources, a google search yeilds a lot of listings on music websites, but on a cursory look nothing notability asserting, but it might have the potential. i ^said 06:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claim as to why the band is notable, and a cursory look at their myspace page gives no impression that they would pass WP:MUSIC. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and I can't find any online. MarkinBoston 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 25 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 per WP:SNOW. Articles need cleanup, not deletion -- feel free to tag them as needed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians

These articles are clear POV forks full of origional reaserch, and are not worth keeping. They all suffer from WP:OR problems, NPOV problems, and many sources unrelated to the topic. They suffer the exact same problems as the "Historical persecution by (religion)" articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the exact same problems and are similar articles.

Sefringle^Talk 05:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article is of a very high-quality and covers an important and real subject. Persecution of Christians has been a reality since Christ walked the Earth, and is still a serious problem in many undemocratic countries. I suspect a pointed or bad faith nomination here. --TotesBoats 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep POV problems are edit related, and not grounds for deletion. In fact, I'm not aware that "not worth keeping" is a valid grounds for deletion. Is it not true that there was persecution of members of these religions (or not religions)? Are there absolutely no sources to confirm that? I doubt it. In any case, I suggest this be closed before it becomes a trainwreck. FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't speak for most of the articles, but Persecution of Bahá'ís is very well sourced from many different places including from the United Nations reports, Amnesty International, and countless other reliable sources which have discussed the persecution of the Baha'is in great depth. -- Jeff3000 05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic. Inevitably, some POV problems will arise but that's no reason to delete. --Folantin 08:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a well balanced article, not POV, and should be kept. Nominator seems to have some sort of problem with this type of article, but that is his concern and not a reason to delete.--Dmol 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep. I agree that ORs should be removed, but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion.--nids (♂) 11:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep for what can be dealt with editorially. Dbromage [Talk] 11:14, 25 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 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility paradox

Original research, and silly besides ("My guess is you won't"). Alksub 04:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's some very intersting OR, but OR nonetheless. i ^said 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research Corpx 06:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter nonsense. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits for +"possibility paradox" -wikipedia come up with 24, most of which are for statements that use the two words in an ordered list. The phrase comes up only for a couple message boards. Ghits are not a sign of notability, admittedly, but something that doesn't even come up with a potential lead towards anything resembling a reliable source to prove it even exists, let alone is notable.. well, proves its lack of notability enough for me. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Dbromage [Talk] 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete as OR and POV. Besides .. it makes my head hurt. Where's the aspirin? --Trippz 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very original research. Calgary 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a few sources (i.e., more than one or two) could be cited to show that someone has made a published observation of a possibility paradox, then it would make all the difference in the world on whether to Keep or Delete. I've never heard of this particular exercise in logical thinking. It would have been common sense for the author, who thought this was notable, to reveal a source. There's probably a paradox here about something that is famous, but nobody knows that it is famous. Mandsford 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If nobody knows that it's famous, how famous can it be? ;) Faithlessthewonderboy 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Minor Headache, Non-notable OR and POV -Flubeca^Talk 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, sources unlikely to exist. -- Huon 21:37, 25 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. No deletion necessary. Eluchil404 03:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuyoshi Mashabuchi

This artist has already found on Wikipedia. It is a duplication of page.

See: Tsuyoshi Nagabuchi

Comment I've redirected the article, because that does not need an AfD. i ^said 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Delete + Redirect is more appropriate in this case Corpx 06:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Those articles should be redirected, no need to delete them. i ^said 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable stated.--Hooperbloob 00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tsuyoshi Nagabuchi would be appropriate.Please my comments at talk page at the Tsuyoshi Nagabuchi talk page. Thank you-RFD 14:46, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoity Fandarast

Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Article describes a propaganda campaign by the Georgian government yet there are no non-Georgian sources available. Article is inherently POV. Article ~~will likely never~~ does not adequately present the opposing viewpoint. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Despite being the nominator, I change my vote to Merge this article with The_Salvation_Union_of_South_Ossetia. Kober has convinced me of a little bit of notability. I believe that it would be better if the information were part of the Salvation Union article as it is just a stub and this information could expand the Salvation Union article a bit more and make it a better article. Merging would also eliminate the POV in the title. I also want you to be aware of the constant assumptions of bad faith from many of the users that edit these articles. Not just the comments below but it has been a constant string of assumption of bad faith. On this particular issue one user tried to remove the delete discussion tag from the article. I have been nothing but cordial. Furthermore, snide comments are left on the edit summaries and on the talk pages. I can provide diffs on request. Pocopocopocopoco 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you actually want? It's pretty puerile to change a vote when the outcome is becoming obvious. I don't think that your move is in the letter and spirit of Wiki guidelines.--Kober^Talk 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Kokoity's reaction to the movement has also been included, but you still claim that "the Article will likely never present the opposing viewpoint".--Kober^Talk 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith Kober, I acknowledged above that I may have been wrong about the notability and I got convinced by your arguments below and you turn around and get upset. Relax. What do you want me to do, continue to argue on behave of deletion after I've been convinced by you that it shouldn't be deleted but merged instead? See above, I've struck out the never, I still believe that the article is POV as it stands because it merely shows Kokoity as having an negative emotional reaction, but I will use one of the sources you provided below to make the article more neutral regardless of whether it is kept as is or merged. I recommend thinking about merging as it can improve the provisional government article. It's better to have one good article rather than two stubs. Pocopocopocopoco 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody gave you right to decide about this article. Your POV pushing is very disruptive. Most people voted to keep it and many of them also will oppose your another attempt to destroy this article. It will not be merged. Your tag will be removed shortly. Iberieli 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real movement: [50] [51] and while the article is propaganda now it's our job as editors to fix things like this, not delete them. Calibas 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The two sources you provided describe Dmitry_Sanakoyev and the South Ossetian Provisional Administration for which there are already articles. This "Fandarast" movement is not described in those sources. Pocopocopocopoco 04:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real movement and has earned an international attention. The campaign is not conducted by the Georgian government as claimed by Poco, but by an alliance of Georgian and Ossetian NGOs. I'm afraid this is a bad faith nomination by the user with a strong anti-Georgian POV. --Kober^Talk 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Please don't resort to ad hominem arguments, would you have any non-Georgian sources to support your claims? Pocopocopocopoco 04:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[52] and [53] for example.--Kober^Talk 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source doesn't mention anything about Fandarast. Pocopocopocopoco 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I confused two South Ossetia articles by EurasiaNet. Try this one.--Kober^Talk 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same article author as the tol.cz article. So we've got one non-Georgian source. Hardly international attention but you might be able to convince me that the content of the article could be redirected and merged with The_Salvation_Union_of_South_Ossetia and dePOV'd. After all, the title translates to "Goodbye Kokoity" which is inherently POV. Pocopocopocopoco 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the two different non-Georgian sources published the same article doesn't diminish the subject's notability. "Goodbye Kokoity" is not a descriptive title, but the name of the campaign which cannot be changed just because you find it POV. --Kober^Talk 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another international source [54] for you.--Kober^Talk 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's wrong with Georgian sources for something from Georgia? If the nominator wants to put an 'opposing view' in the article he can do that. Nick mallory 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - This is the equivalent of having an article titled "Goodbye George Bush" and only citing Democratic party loyal sources and having no other sources available. Pocopocopocopoco 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources have been provided - enough with your deletionist agenda. Fosnez 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to bring it to your attention that this user Pocoproco is a politicized user with certain agenda on Wikipedia. This attempt to delete the article is an indication of POV pushing due to political convictions this user has. This article has valid sources (taken from UN news pages, etc). I also made it more NPOV yesterday, but even that was not enough for this politicized user. This page should be protected. MIGAbkhazeti 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed all references and they all support the article. Its in no way propaganda but a realistic political campaign. [55]. Taton80 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, supported with sources and in total compliance with encyclopedic content and NPOV. This is clearly a political pushing which is very destructive for Wikipedia productivity. Iberieli 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy campaign, part of Georgia's goverments agitprop. Tamokk 07:10, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Vault

The "Disney Vault" isn't a real place or thing. It's not even an actual marketing term. Does it really deserve a Wikipedia article, especially one filled with personal reports? FuriousFreddy 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs in the Disney article. Calibas 03:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source appropriately. [56] demonstrates plenty of sources on this concept. So it's not real in the sense of being an actual physical thing, it's still an established concept that has even lead to a skit on Saturday Night Live[57]. I certainly agree the current article could be significantly improved, but it does merit an article. The most I would suggest is merge/redirect to the an article describing the marketing practices of the Disney corporation. It is how they do describe things. Just look at a few of their own descriptions. Disney vault features in many of them. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an example of at least one source [58] which clearly describes the practice. I think there's more, but there's so many to sort through, it's hard to find the right ones. Heck, I can find descriptions of this practice dating back to the 1970s. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --TotesBoats 05:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable (unusual) practice by Disney to keep its classics "fresh". Half the article right now is WP:OR-ish essay about the "age-appropriate" issue, which definitely needs sourcing. The article should really be mostly about the marketing approach and how it is viewed by marketing experts and competitors, not some random person's gripe. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's a real term used by Disney. That said, it could probably be covered in one of the articles about Disney movies. - Koweja 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a notable concept, often mentioned in publications for upcoming re-releases, or when a film it placed into the "vault" to grow moldy and await public interest for release. Disney films (amongst other reasons) are a lot like cheese in this way. For example Song of the South is buried deep within the vault, perhaps within the vault's vault, next to some musty old pirate skeletons, Clarabelle Cow and Horace Horsecollar, lost within this conceptual Disney marketing abyss known as the "Disney Vault". The article could do with some expansion, but I'd still keep it as a stub. --Trippz 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Fosnez 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a particularly notable marketing concept. I imagine this has been a huge moneymaker for the company as they incite paranoia in parents that their kids won't be able to see Dumbo if they don't buy now. Erechtheus 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it currently stands the article is a hefty heaping of POV wrapped in Original Research, but the subject itself is notable, and there is grounds for a decent article. Calgary 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator points out, it isn't a real place or thing... which is exactly why it's notable. It's brilliant marketing, the mental image of a vault, filled with treasures that you will have the privilege of purchasing, until the vault door closes.... The unspoken message is that if you should fail to buy the DVD edition of "Oliver and Company", your children will be grown before it will ever be available again. And they will never forgive you. Mandsford 17:38, 25 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 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shrines in Diablo

An largely in-universe list, useful only for those who play the game, and Wikipedia is not a game guide UsaSatsui 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for nominator's reasons, Not Directory, Not enough Context, etc. ALTON .ıl 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Evb-wiki 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information belongs in GameFAQs.com, since Wikipedia is not a WP:NOT#GUIDE. Useight 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipedia is not a game guide Corpx 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide material and merely a list without any context. --Fogeltje 10:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide list. No context. Ask Creator to include it in gamefaqs.com or another website. -Flubeca^Talk 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up and Merge Has some valid information. Dfrg.msc 00:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? --UsaSatsui 00:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo Spawn

A shareware variant of Diablo. Long orphaned. Already merged relevant info. No reason to keep the remnants. UsaSatsui 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per UsaSatsui.--Voxpuppet 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the rationale raised by the nominator. Erechtheus 15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 25 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 speedied. android 79 21:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel M Barker

Delete. Unverified. Not mentioned in cast list for College Road Trip; not in IMDB at all under this name. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Minor role in a movie does not grant notability Corpx 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:V. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 25 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 WWE Diva Search, no predjudice against re-creation if notability issue is settled by reliable sources or if she does something notable, like win the contest. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Terrell

Delete - Lack of information, not written well, 2007 WWE Diva Search Contestant should not get an article at this time, the person is not notable Art 281 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability really asserted: it'd be one thing if she was a Playboy Playmate or had won some wrestling award, but there's nothing of that kind.--Voxpuppet 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Apparent COI as well; posted by SPA, Tnterre1. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Diva Search. No prejudice towards recreation if she wins or gets a permanent job with WWE. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - written well, playboy model (million times), diva finalist. User:AquariusBoy01 25 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
Comment - The article is not written well it has run-on sentences & fragments. Just because she has been in Playboy a million times that doesn't make her a notable person, diva search contestant shouldn't have their own articles at this time. There isn't anything else we know or have acquired data for Taryn Terrell. Art 281 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible KEEP - Playboy would certainly qualify as a reliable independent source. If a featured article or other significant mention can be found regarding her or her career, then keep. [COMMENT: A poorly written article is not automatic grounds for deletion. It should be edited and cleaned up by some of our more active Wikipedians... Hint-Hint.] --BaldDee 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With what? That is all the info the user has acquire to make the article. And Playboy doesn't make her a notable person. Art 281 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes Playboy does make you a notable person, and if you have posed numerous times. User:AquariusBoy01 27 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AquariusBoy01 (talk • contribs) 11:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Comment - No it doesn't. The diva search contestants shouldn't have their own article's YET. Art 281 16:13, 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 All except Spaceships of EVE Online - this looks more notable. If anyone wishes to transwiki, message me on my talk page for the deleted text. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallente Federation (EVE Online)

Non notable.Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT.Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ample precedent exists for deletion of this article, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyerite, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitrator (EVE), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executioner (EVE), Punisher (EVE) and Tormentor (EVE).

Other precident:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures.Hu12 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related:

Delete: fails WP:NOT and is also no more than an essay.--Voxpuppet 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of ships, Merge the others into appropriate articles or just axe them. Individual empires shouldn't get their own articles, and they're not well sourced, but I see no issue with the ship list. I suggest removing it from the AFD, it's not really related. --UsaSatsui 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Just merge the content. Relevant, but not by itself. i ^said 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - All are completely in universe content with no real world notability. List of ships should be deleted because WP is not a game guide. Transwiki if an appropriate wiki is found Corpx 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between a game guide and an article about a game feature. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that game features are stuff that are found in game guides Corpx 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, or perhaps United Federation of Planets should be deleted as well? Fosnez 14:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an AADD. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And thats a typically weak response. You can hide behind as much quoted bureaucratic nonsense as you want. It seems the deletionists have really won wikipedia, and this makes me sad. Fosnez 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What kind of argument is that? "My argument is so weak it's even been listed on a page of weak arguments, yet since you're a deletionist, my argument is stronger?" Just because one article is included doesn't open the door for another (especially when one is Star Trek and another is a far less popular MMORPG). Nice try at a Rush Limbaugh-type move, though, labeling me as a "deletionist" and therefore everything I say is wrong. I didn't even vote Delete in this AFD. Pay attention next time. --UsaSatsui 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have seen too many articles deleted because they are "not notable" to someone who doesn't know where the contect came from. Now it's mine turn to quote... "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- Jimmy Wales[59] by deleteing articles like this, we are not providing the sum of all human knowledge - hence why I called you a deletionist, because when you attacked me (and hiding behind policy is an attack IMHO) I automatically assumed you were against the preservation of this endangered article - I appologise for calling you a deletionist, but the fact remains, this IS a notable subject... Seeing as Google searches seem to have somehow come to reflect Notability, here are some figures:

Amarr Empire - 22,300

Gallente Federation - 21,100

Minmatar Republic - 18,500

Caldari State - 21,700

"Not Notable" - Oh I think they are notable, they may be suitable on other wikis, but as Mr. Wales so well put it above - they are valid articles here too - Fosnez 10:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, see, that is an argument. Much better than "It's notable because I say it is" or "You just want to delete everything!", anyways. You have a strange idea of an attack. I didn't even quote "policy". You need to bring something to the table when you make a point, you know. And you're doing it again, throwing out terms like "deletionist" like they're bad things.

Anyways, I still don't think each race should get it's own article, but I don't think a delete is in order. --UsaSatsui 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fosnez wasn't making an 'other crap exists' argument. ALTON .ıl 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - "Or do we have to delete X too"? S'what it looks like to me. Why waste time over which bad argument it was? It's better now. --UsaSatsui 12:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per my nom and Corpx. better suited on http://www.eve-wiki.net than on Wikipedia--Hu12 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I've played EVE, it's a great game, and this is a good start at a gaming guide. Sadly, that isn't what wikipedia's about, this needs moving to a more appropriate wiki. --Oscarthecat 10:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Craine

Delete. No evidence that this individual is notable as per WP:BIO. Only 101 "unique" Google results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who proposed deletion due to the lack of reliable sources present in the article and the lack of prospects for additional reliable sources based on the results from web searches such as the one mentioned above. Erechtheus 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly written and no real assertion of notability.--Voxpuppet 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why is this not a speedy delete for lact of assertion of notability? --Rocksanddirt 03:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I interpreted rising director/producer as a claim of notability, which would be enough to escape speedy deletion. That's why I went with proposed deletion. I'm fully aware that there was probably a 50-50 chance that the reviewing admin would have just deleted this on a speedy. Erechtheus 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above too --Hooperbloob 03:35, 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 12:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Plaza

Non-notable strip mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:N. Tagged for importance since April with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - keyword here is assert notability. It might be an important cultural landmark or such but the article fails to mention it. ALTON .ıl 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability asserted.--Voxpuppet 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no mall is notable, this is no exception. i ^said 06:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why do we even bother to put You can help Wikipedia by expanding it if all that is going to happen is all the stubs are going to get deleted anyway? Fosnez 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can expand this article using reliable sources about it, please feel free to do so and make note of it here so we can reconsider. Erechtheus 15:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable shopping center. A scan of search results yields no promising additional sources. Erechtheus 15:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the Green Bay, doesn't seem to be notable enough for a single article.--JForget 00:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of non notability and the lack of article improvement over time. --Stormbay 02:22, 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 was pointed out, the article isn't salvageable in this form, and an example of an article that it might be worth basing a worthwhile article on was given. ELIMINATORJR 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sip phone

Being used by a few users as a sort of review page. Doesn't seem to be redeemable in this format, and constantly policing it to remove POV statements sounds like a waste of time. Fightindaman 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. POV, and might violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --H irohisat ^Talk 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - includes a fair amount of editorial (WP:SOAP) and original research (WP:NOR). Additionally, it is totally orphaned (What links here). ALTON .ıl 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete While SIP is a notable network protocol, this article appears to be just as the nominator states: "a sort of review page." Delete per WP:NOT#FORUM, etc.~~ —Travis^talk 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Page has been rewritten, but some original research remains. For example, the Cisco ATA-186/188 is described as a "Useable Adapter." Also, the USB handsets and adapters section, for example, is written in a rather informal and unencyclopedic tone. If the OR is removed and references are added, the article should stay. The writing style is not grounds for deletion. —Travis^talk 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does one cite "I bought some, opened the boxes, plugged them in, and saw that it creates a Windows sound device?". At some level, every article on WP has some original research. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, you can and should cite it. Articles lose featured status by missing one or two citations. ALTON .ıl 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on page to ask for non-deletion: This page is still obviously being built. The end goal of this page, and the purpose behind it, is to give the general public a way to weed through the massive amount of SIP phones that have started to flood the market. In implementation, this page should end up as a way for users to compare SIP phones and use it as a method to decide which to use. Personally, I would compare the end-result of this page to be along the lines of the Comparison of revision control software page which I honestly find to be a very useful guide, and have used several times. I agree that right now, it is pretty bare and review-ish, but that is because it has just started to be created. Once there is much more information gathered, a proper end-user page can be laid out, generated, and filled in. MitoTranin 04:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - well, the problem is that it contains original Research, and can be a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this is a little quick off the mark - there would be no pages in wikipedia if you deleted everything as soon as it got started. What we have right now is just a list of headings to flesh out with information. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive guide to configuration and capabilities of the many SIP devices available. Original research does not apply as the information is all out there and we're just collecting it in one place. It's amazing how many wikilawyers can cite policy but not offer suggestions on how to improve the article. Terrymr 04:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ~~The point is, that this article is considered for deletion. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)~~ If that is the case, citing sources will do the case. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - List of SIP software is an appropriate example showing how a large subset of this SIP Phone data could be organized. If we want this article to continue, avoid pricing information, review-like comments, or guide book type instructions, those are all contrary to wikipedia policy. --Yngling —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
- Comment - To better comply with the corresponding types of articles, I moved the page to Comparison of SIP Phones and also created a link on the corresponding List of SIP software page. MitoTranin 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on page to ask for non-deletion: Tagging for deletion within 24 hrs of the page creation seems to make the deletion policy moot...which says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." The article is attracting new editors to Wikipedia that may need some education regarding article policies, but 24 hrs does not provide much of a chance for this education process. The article clearly does not violate any of the abuse rationale for deletion, so its unclear what would justify the rapid push for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberninger (talk • contribs) 12:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Comment/concerns The headline of the article is misleading as the article speaks of SIP hardphones only. The article is prose, it will invite people to dump their advertizing spam into it. If we decide to keep the article, it should be reorganized in a form similar to Comparison_of_VoIP_software. --Kgfleischmann 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Retort - Again, the article is still less than 24 hours old. We have hardly had enough time to organize all hard-phones together, let alone soft-phones. We have actually had discussions about adding such soft-phones into the page, but it's still less than 24 hours old! Give us a chance to flesh it out and actually provide the content that you are criticizing us for not yet even having a chance to include. And as I said before, the layout is still far from complete and finalized. If we were to try to create a table for direct comparison at this point, it would be a very bare table, since we don't have enough content to fill the table with! MitoTranin 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment/concerns You probably have seen, that the Softphones can be found as well in Comparison of VoIP software as in List of SIP software, so there is absolutely no need to add them to this article. So renaming would make the thing a bit more neutral. Also, if you are working on the article, consider my second proposal.The list structure of Comparison_of_VoIP_software makes it easier to compare facts and not the opinions of the authors. It so gives some protections against advertising spammers, who are a problem in the Wikipedia. Btw. a deletion normally gives you 7 days to improve the article. --Kgfleischmann 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Retort - The first line of the article narrows the objective as SIP devices. This clarification can be improved by stating SIP devices that do not require connection to the PC. In any case, the urgency of deletion does not make sense in the current context. It actually tends to be self-fulfilling at this stage - the tag for deletion tends to discourage people from working on improvements lest they waste them time on a doomed article.

dberninger —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

- @[User:dberninger|dberninger]]: Sorry, the name of the article is misleading. I fear, the form will attract spammers and thus will cause problems. I would prefer to keep the article, but if no changes will take place during the next 7 days, it is better to delete it. --Kgfleischmann 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why spend money on advertising when there's the free encylopedia that anyone can edit? Mandsford 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Side note: I suggest the above comment be deleted, as looking at the user's discussion page, he has many bouts and disputes with deletions of his own. His comment does not really have any bearing on the content of the article, and I now believe that he is just out to vandalize others that are on grounds for deletion. (Remove comment on grounds of guideline "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". I will also point out his blatant spam in many (if not all) current articles in the AfD dispute MitoTranin 18:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you see any advertising? In the end this will simply boil down to a comparison chart with descriptive information! That's not advertising! If you are determined to delete this article, then you should also delete the other 6201 (of the 6202 results of this simple search) articles in the wikipedia that are created on the same premise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoTranin (talk • contribs) 18:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to preface every comment with a notification. It doesn't matter whether it has been only 24 hours or if it could possibly be confused. What most editors do at this point, Mito, is rebuild the page in their userspace (like User:MitoTranin/work), and bring it into mainspace when it addresses all these concerns that everyone is bringing up. Right now, the problems people have brought up is that a list of this nature will contain much original research, is an extremely esoteric list and comparison, and it is a fork of information that could be added to extant articles. These are not all easily fixed. However, when a discussion becomes as mutilated as this one the page will usually not be deleted (I would note however, no one has given a compelling argument as to why it should be kept), but those who called for its deletion will keep a close watch on it to make sure you do slip up. I suggest you work on the page on your userpage so that you don't create a rushed effort merely to avert someone's notion that it should be destroyed.

I do realize that some of these articles are useful, but that is not the point. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain every bit of useful information - the WoW addict would vouch for inclusion of comparisons between weapons and whatnot - and the reasons why those other articles stay is because they don't have the concerns that people bring up here. If you can bring that article up to that standard, only then will it be kept. ALTON .ıl 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although it contains useful information, it's not suitable for Wikipedia, even if it is changed into a neutral table format as on various software comparison pages. VoIP phones are likely to become a commodity product in the next few years, like regular phones, TV sets, MP3 players, cellphones, and so on, with hundreds of different models on the market at the same time and models being replaced by new models every year. A Wikipedia-article just doesn't work in the long term. Han-Kwang (t) 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Retort - The delete argument makes a giant presumtion about the future absent any evidence. The fact TV's are commodities 80 years after their arrival does not make SIP devices commodities. In fact, the purpose of the SIP Phone article is to document dimensions relevant for comparison of the devices. How is something a commodity even before we know how to compare any two examples? dberninger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberninger (talk • contribs) 10:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

None of the problems described seems to describe a reason for deletion. It can't be argued tht SIP phones are not notable or that any article about SIP phones necessarily fails due to the nature of the subject matter. I would therefore refer the pro-delete camp to this :

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. " Terrymr 15:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Tree Mall

Non-notable, very small mall in Wisconsin. Fails WP:RS, no notability asserted at all. Hardly changed since creation in early 2006. Possible speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:05, 15 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, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. --H irohisat ^Talk 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7--Sefringle^Talk 05:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've declined the speedy because people do get pissed about these things. But really, there's no good reason to keep this around. Pascal.Tesson 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable mall with no obvious prospects of establishing notability based on my glance at search results. Erechtheus 15:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, wasn't this called the Pine Trees Mall before Marty went back in time? Mandsford 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thought that... --Hemlock Martinis 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This certainly appears to be a non-notable mall.--Stormbay 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a local mall fails WP:N Harlowraman 03:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Hall Shopping Center

Non-notable strip mall,fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable mall. i ^said 06:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nope. No notability here. -WarthogDemon 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, couldn't find additional information or current events pertaining to this location.MDSL2005 11:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 00:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the town's article per Coppertwig.JForget 00:42, 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 delete due to apparent lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Framingham Mall

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Note that the writer doesn't even know what date the mall was built. Tagged for references since June with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable mall. i ^said 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. This article and some other information I found in a quick search gets this article halfway to notability. If there were something else special about this mall, we'd have notability. As far as I can tell, the redevelopment angle is the only significant thing a reliable source has reported on with regard to it. That's not enough. Erechtheus 16:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've shopped there when I lived briefly in the town. Shoppers come from all around central Mass. and the Beantown suburbs to this place. It seesm to be a notable mall. Supposedly, it is one of the oldest malls in the Boston area. It needs cites. Bearian 22:56, 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 12:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinculum: The ties that bind.

Nonnotable comic book. The Evil Spartan 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up only one hit for this comic book. It is therefore impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if something can't be found on a quick google search then it clearly doesn't exist. Unless you count maybe a book or something old fashioned like that. Do they even have books anymore? Nick mallory 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if it was, as you say "old fashioned", it would still have more than a single hit on google. I'm not sure on this one... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick on this one: a Google search is not an end-all. While in this case one hit is definitely a indication that this is not a well-known work, I would not make the same conclusion you did based on that result. ALTON .ıl 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a vanity page. Artw 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to give notability. The burden of proof to produce these sources are on the people who do not want to delete this Corpx 06:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity - the creator and only editor of the page is Luije, who has the same name as the comic's author and who has made no non-Vinculum-related contributions to Wikipedia. The article outlines the plot of the first twelve issues, but says that only a preview issue and the first issue have been published. It's claimed that these issues have been 'hugely successful' and have received 'great reviews' but no evidence of this is provided and I find none on Google. No, a Google search is not the be-all-and-end-all -- but given the first issue of the comic was only published this month I doubt any books have been written about it yet. If/when a book or article or, heck, anything written by someone other than the author appears, I'll be happy to reconsider. --Zeborah 10:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk. I appologize if this is not proper protocol, as some of you have already mentioned I am new here submiting work to Wiki, so I am not entirely sure if this is how one proceeds in order to argue his point as to why a page should stay or be deleted, but I will proceed to address some of your concerns. 1. For those of you who doubt that the comic book exists or not, before sending the page to the electric chair I encourage you to call Graham Cracker Comics in Chicago (they have 9 different locations throughout the Chicago area and they currently carry the title). You may also call Metro Comics in San Juan, Puerto Rico another retailer who not only carries the title, they are actually sponsoring a signing with the creators next saturday at a local mall from 11am-3pm. You may also call the marketing offices of Nissan Motors Puerto Rico & Coca-Cola Caribbean who sponsor the book and have provided funding to cover the production, advertising and public relations costs. If you visit my personal page http://luije.deviantart.com you will read the commets and reviews of some of the fans that have written there and you will see that there have been over 500 hits in less than 2 weeks, all dedicated to Vinculum (since that's all there is). Also the official page for the comic book http://www.vinculumnow.com has received over 2,300 hits in less than 2 weeks. Around 400 of those hits were made on the opening weekend that we were in the Comic Con in Chicago promoting the book where we met with the editors of the top 5 publishing companies and they all seemed to be impressed and two of them actually have followed-up requesting a second metting. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, like I said before I'm a rookie... but isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an online tool to provide people with information regarding things that they don't know about? To help clarify doutbts? So if for example someone like Władysław Grabski (a polish politician) doesn't get enough hits... his page get's deleted based on lack of interest? Isn't that precisely why we look in encyclopedias, to find out more about the things that we know little about? If you have any suggestions or actual critisism as to how the content of the page should be changed, rewritten, edited, etc... please let me know. Like I said I have never submited anything to Wiki before. I'll be more than glad to adjust the contents to fit the form. But to delete the entry claiming that the sources are not verifiable because it didn't show up on a Google search? I find that to be very a very shallow investigation. Plus, I don't know why you say it didn't give you any results, when not only does it give you my deviantart page as the first finding but there are also 3 google ads campaigns running right now with banners and all promoting the official webpage. If any of you would like an actual copy of the book, send me a note with your physical address and I'll be more than glad to send it you. Anything else that you may requiere from me, please feel free to contact me as well. Thank you very much before hand for your help in this matter. <removed email - Corpx > Luije 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not lack of interest, but lack of notability. It does not appear that this comic book has been reviewed by critics or otherwise received coverage from reliable sources. We rely on this so people do not use this encyclopedia for advertising/promotion. Corpx 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sincerely wish Luije the best luck for this and his future endeavours, but the above arguments and finally his own defence of the article has convinced me that there not yet good grounds (that is, external reviews, independent articles about it etc.) for considering the subject notable. --Goochelaar 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not about truth, but about verifiability, and unless someone besides the creator has written something about this comic, it's not notable. The Library of Congress doesn't know it or its author. --Huon 22:13, 25 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 withdrawn. The Evil Spartan 13:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Andrew Tuiteleleapaga

I have done google search on this man, and I can find no evidence of notability. The Evil Spartan 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep, seems he composed the territorial anthem for American Samoa per this source and others. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the style it is written in needs improvement. I also did a google search, and got 241 hits, the consensus is that he did write the Samoan national anthem this one being typical, a search on imbd brought up this which confirms the claim he did compose for Hollywood. I searched for a discography on Amazon but found this book instead. A minor alternative spelling of "Tuiteleleapaga, Napoleone A" was found at a samoan culture site.[60]. Using this alternative spelling on Google returned 87 hits, most of these refering to the book I was so dissappointed to find earlier. Many of these hits were academic in nature and it appears that this individual was instrumental in informing the debate as to how the Islanders should interact with outsiders. This piece] at ABC is particularly interesting, refering to this individual as "...the eminent Samoan chief and scholar Napoleone Tuiteleleapaga". The Google search with the alternative spelling also led to the uneathing of Court papers which seem to confim that this individual was indeed a clan chief.

So we are here to decide the notability of an individual who in his youth composed for Hollywood, went on to compose his nation's national anthem, wrote a book which is refered to by academics with regards Samoan culture and language and informs Samoan diplomacy and was also to cap it all was a Tribal chief of his people. In any sensible world this individual definately was and is notable. I think I'm going to adopt "ignorance of a topic doesn't make it non-notable" as my motto. The article still needs cleaning up though.KTo288 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nominator had done the homework KTo288 had done, would this be up for AfD? Or does he have to write two national anthems to stay in? Nick mallory 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. If you would assume good faith, rather than making personal attacks, perhaps we could have a decent conversation about this. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evil Spartan. I am not questioning your good faith, merely your ability to search for sources. You failed to turn up sources, so you listed it for AfD, while KTo288 did a search and turned up a host of sources which attest to this man's notability. You are told by AfD rules to search for sources, contact the original writer for sources or tag an article before nominating it for deletion, none of which you seem to have done. Do you now agree that he is notable and if so will you withdraw the nomination? If you still think him not notable, perhaps you would explain why not as your original rationale has been disproved. You're playing the man here, not me. KT0288 found 288 google hits, including an Australian Radio National programme, court papers and a book and showed the man wrote a national anthem and played a role in national affairs, I'm interested in how you managed to miss all that. Once again, is writing a national anthem, for instance, enough to assert notability in your view or would he have to have written two? Would you like to help me add these sources to the article? Nick mallory 07:17, 25 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Toro Handrail

AfDs for this article:

As the last nomination in 2005 states, the handrail exists, and it is well-known by those in the skateboarding community. However, to me, the state of the article two years later does not prove that its keeping it in Wikipedia is the best thing to do. It has a history of mostly IP edits and reverts, and the most telling element of this page is Whatlinkshere - which links to three actual articles, two of which seem to me like barely notable elements as well. I'm all for the scope and different perspectives of Wikipedia, but little articles like these are what makes inclusion guidelines hazy. ALTON .ıl 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. It's very POV, and a magnet for self promotion and vandalism. i ^said 06:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this handrail (it wont be easy giving significant coverage to a handrail) Corpx 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a handrail at a high school. I mean, come on: it's not even a Pokemon card.-- Mikeblas 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written with an excess of jargon and is insufficiently sourced despite the length of time it has been here. As a remote second choice, slight merge to El Toro High School, where it is located. --Metropolitan90 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It seems unlikely to be sourced. A two to three sentence mention in El Toro High School would not be inapropriate. Dsmdgold 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and mention in El Toro High School per Metropolitan90 and Dsmdgold. bd2412 T 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the nominator says it is "well-known by those in the skateboarding community". You are going to delete it because you can't bothered to look after it? That's in the best interests of wikipedia, huh? Kappa 08:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (shrink and merge) to some skateboarding article. Carcharoth 13:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the nominator said it best. Paul 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's pretty disgusting that you people evaluate topics based on who edits the articles. Kappa 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect' this to el toro high school is best here yuckfoo 07:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any notability here. A claim is made that this object is well known, but after 2 AfDs I still don't see any 3rd party sources covering it to verify this. Without notability, or reliable sources, looks like an obvious deletion. Author and maintainers have had time to provide these things if they existed. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, ironically I just reverted vandalism on the page. Cheers,Je t Lover 01:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roflsnooker

Conteted prod. Absolutely no references anywhere that I can find. Seems to fail WP:NFT. The Evil Spartan 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no hits for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, Google turns up diddly squat. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be written as an advertisement ("new and exciting" "very popular" "it is widely believed") and is quite possibly a conflict of interest (WP:COI) given that 72% of the edits to the article are by a red-linked user named Roflsnooker. I concur with NFT violation. ALTON .ıl 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, this joke, apparently made up in school one day, is definitely worthy of deletion. And, if that's not enough, the fact that the name of the "game" includes (R)oll (O)n the (F)loor (L)aughing is a good indication that this may be a hoax. —Travis ^talk 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Voxpuppet 03:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best a protologism, but most probably a hoax. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a hoax, breach of WP:V. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, per the fact there is "ROFL" in the title, no serious topic whould include that. Non notable if not a hoax.-Flubeca^Talk 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm surprised this doesn't fit a speedy criterion. --Eyrian 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. At the very best, this is just a 'game' invented by one person for use with his mates. The fact the article was created by username Roflsnooker does not help its case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx17777 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Freese

I am neutral on this article's deletion, but there appears to be a failure of WP:PROF. Let consensus decide. Crockspot 00:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. MarkinBoston 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability here. The subject in question has not published a significant and well-known academic work. The person's collective body of work is also not significant and well-known as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable content. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Professor Freese has yet to establish himself as an encyclopedic worthy sociologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.209.251 (talk) 02:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Siva1979.--Voxpuppet 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ward3001 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and entry seems to be nothing more than self-promotion for his web site 144.90.123.189

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-49 Night Raven

This article is about a fictional aircraft from the video game Ace Comabt 3. It is not famous or well-known in any way, and the article is at this point a stub. I believe this unfortunately fails WP:FICTION. P.B. Pilhet 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable. Eleland 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Voxpuppet 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE Corpx 06:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In universe with no evidence through sources of any real world context. Nuttah68 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:31, 25 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. Navou ^banter 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cream (software)

A pile of Vim scripts with no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptkfgs has undisclosed bias in recommending deletion of this article, his own Wikipedia user page bears a banner for the Vim text editor. (The whole point of the article for deletion in question is that it is a working commentary of the Vim user interface.)

I'd also like to add that Cream has been referenced by a third parties unknown to me for at least 5 years and countless references to date. Given the state of the Editor War, I'd like to propose that the Cream article remain in lieu of being merged or deleted, especially by someone without Neutral point of view. -- Digitect 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used it and have no opinion on the software. The Vim article is on my watchlist, and after noting a discussion of Cream on the talk page, I examined the article and found that it contains no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a software directory and we must limit our coverage of software to those items for which multiple non-trivial reliable sources attest notability. This is not the first software-related article I've nominated for deletion, and my nomination should not be misinterpreted as a judgement on the quality of the software itself. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused, wouldn't a user with an emacs (not a vim) button have a POV problem? But I guess, you are saying there is an "editor war" between vim and cream just like between vi and emacs? Anyway, as long as this won't help with WP:N, it shouldn't matter. The articles on itworld.com and linux.com ([61][62]) mentioned in the article are both non trivial, reliable sources, as far as I can tell, so no reason to delete the article because of notability concerns. There's also quite a few somewhat more trivial mentions turning up in google, e.g. [63] lists it as one of two possible linux alternatives to notepad and describes it a bit. Likely more can be found. Of course, the article is just a stub and could need some work, so I'd also see no big problem with merging and redirecting this to the vim article - no AfD needed for doing so though. --Allefant 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the information useful, especially the external links. There is no point in deleting it. (B.Meerdink) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.25.180 (talk) 12:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to gain better consensus Computerjoe 's talk 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informative Fosnez 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge per Allefant. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Allefant. --Aarktica 21:50, 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Left Jihad}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy Allman}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy Allman}}