Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 14

< December 13	December 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No WP:V sources despite 3-4 months being tagged for them. Only sources are apparently not independent of the mall ownership. Pigman☿ 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towne Mall

Non-notable mall in Kentucky, doesn't meet precedent for super-regional classification. Tagged for sources and notability since August with nothing added. Also written in a somewhat promotional tone. (P.S.: It's hard to find any sources for this mall since there are about eight million other malls that are either "Towne Mall" or "_____ Towne Mall".) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This link reveals that the Gross Leasing Area of the mall is 353,000 square feet, and the mall has about 60 stores, which would seem to fall below the threshold of notability, but if it is the only mall in an eight-county region, it might qualify as notable. Malls are always very hard to find reliable sources for, unfortunately. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not make the claim that it is the only mall. It appears to be another nn small US mall. The article is mostly about the area rather then the mall itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What precedent? Please point out to me where it is written what you say is the precedent that has been agreed to by consensus ? Or that 353,000 sq ft, and/or 60 stores is an agree'd to 'threshold'? That argument is pointless after reading WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just doesn't seem notable beyond the locale. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, it is then notable to the locals, and since there is no 'local' clause in WP:N, it should stay. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not clearly notable. Written in a promotional tone, as noted by the nominator. Dekimasu よ! 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be written like an advertisment and it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. Pigman☿ 23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Hilarion, et al

Article about a... thing... that has no notability outside of an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment. Some material might be merged into Seven Rays, H. P. Blavatsky, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for delete/merge:

and the Theosophy sectoon of Count of St. Germain, at least, if the huge section discussing a dozen or so different Theosophanist's views on him in great detail is again restored. All form part of a huge walled garden. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD pages:

A related article, Great White Brotherhood, was listed for deletion on the same day as the above articles, at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood.
This is the second nomination for deletion of the article Djwal Khul. The prior nomination was on March 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[The above related-AfD links have been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 15 December 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}}.

Delete or merge unless notability established on each individual article. These articles seem to fail WP:N: no evidence of substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are from publishing houses that are owned by/associated with the various New Age movements that believe in these things. I conducted Lexis-Nexis searches of all the major English-language newspapers, plus Google Scholar searches, and found no substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources. I went to the Harvard library and pulled what seem to be the major reference books that discuss Ascended Master Teachings and other New Age movements and found little or no coverage of these subjects. Full disclosure: This AfD is the result of a somewhat heated discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard (e.g., someone compared me and other editors to the Nazis and then the Taliban for trying to "censor" a religious movement). Fireplace (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep all.

Since I am the individual being referred to by User:Fireplace, let me again repeat: I was referring to the mentality that desires to DENY information on subjects they find worthless. I had written: "Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be. "

I object to deletion. Before considering how to eliminate these few articles on subjects that many people consider spiritually significant to their lives, how about first considering the elimination of the

HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on comic book characters from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, for example: List_of_DC_Comics_characters.
HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and
HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)?

In the last 132 years, hundreds of books have been written about "Theosophy" and the "Ascended Master Teachings", in various languages and by many publishers. These have described their religious / philosophical theories, their "saints" and adepts, and the social phenomena of the 19th and 20th century organizations that developed from the foundations of the writings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Alice Bailey, Guy Ballard, and various others. Great White Brotherhood, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, Master Jesus, Djwal Khul all are prominent in many 19th and 20th century religious and philosophical organizations.

All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity or "notability" of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a researcher for the past 4 decades of the new religious movements of the 20th century, especially the ones born from the foundations of Esoteric Buddhism, "New Thought", Theosophical and Ascended Master Teachings. Our university department has especially examined the historical and social contexts of those minority religions. To exclude relevant data from Wikipedia on their beliefs, key religious "saints" known as "Ascended Masters", and the individuals who helped shape these organizations would be unthinkable. Arion (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion or merging of the articles on Dwal Khul, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, and Master Jesus. They are spiritually, historically, and socio-culturally significant to stand as separate articles Sage 122568.231.166.180 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)— 68.231.166.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep All Theosophy seems to be a notable religion and so its pantheon merits some detailed articles. See Google Scholar on Master Jesus which includes Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Does notability automatically transfer from a religion to its pantheon? Is that consistent with the "significant coverage" standard of WP:N? (Also, Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized does not appear to be an independent source.) Fireplace (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer In this case, the answer is yes. The only question here really is whether coverage of these folk should be merged with their treatment from other viewpoints. I think not, as this would tend to promote holy edit wars. See Islamic view of Jesus for another similar article to Master Jesus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is the answer "yes"? Phrasing the answer in terms of Wikipedia policy/guidelines, in light of WP:N, would be more helpful. Fireplace (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For general help, I recommend WP:FANATIC. For this specific AFD, there's Subject is a POV. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how pointing me to WP:FANATIC is relevant or civil. And Subject is a POV does not address the notability issue, which is the concern that led these articles to AfD. Fireplace (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It should not be necessary to explain that Jesus is notable. The Theosophist religious view of him is the fork in the POV which I find to be adequately notable and sourced. Your badgering of my position seems both hostile and intolerant in pursuit of your desire to destroy these articles. You note above your surprise at being compared with the Nazis. They espoused a ruthless, modern and scientific view of the world which led them to burn the books of which they disapproved. The WP:FANATIC essay encourages us to take a more relaxed view of our work here and it seems quite pertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ...I really don't think that that was being helpful, boyo. (And a ruthless, scientific view of the world that involved pagan rites based on the Siegfried myth?) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Colonel Warden, I've been calmly discussing a legitimate policy question about interpreting the notability threshold. Fireplace (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A neutral point of view encyclopedia is founded on verifiability. Of course Wikipedia should have an appropriate depth and breath of coverage of the history, beliefs, and personalities of the theosophist movement, but having perused the articles, it appears that every one of them rests on overtly theosophist books for effectively all of the content. This is not a healthy state of affairs and seems to be an argument in favour of ruthless merging and/or redirecting. Could any of these articles be rewritten to use independent, non-theosophist sources for at least the key points? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Major figures in a major religion. I find it just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works. We don't look for non-Christian sources about Saint Paul, or insist on non-Moslem sources for Ali. If there is a controversial discussion of correspondence with secular individuals, then that might need better sourcing, but I do not see such claims being made, and its a matter of editing in any case. I generally wonder whether attempts to remove such articles are perhaps sometimes expressiond of a POV on religion or on certain religions.DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all Theosophy is not an “obscure Victorian spiritual movement”. It is the original basis for the New Age movement, which is composed of millions of people in the United States and Europe who believe in reincarnation. It was a Theosophist named Alice A. Bailey who invented the term New Age.
In addition, the Church Universal and Triumphant, the major religious body formally subscribing to this belief system, has about 100,000 members, which seems significant. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is the contemporary spiritual teacher Benjamin Creme who follows this metaphysical system of Theosophy and who has tens of thousands of followers all over the world. Keraunos (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the following references to the articles to establish notability:
  - Encyclopedic reference:
    - Melton, J. Gordon Encyclopedia of American Religions 5th Edition New York:1996 Gale Research ISBN 0-8103-7714-4 ISSN 1066-1212 Chapter 18--"The Ancient Wisdom Family of Religions" Pages 151-158; see chart on page 154 listing Masters of the Ancient Wisdom; Also see Section 18, Pages 717-757 Descriptions of various Ancient Wisdom religious organizations
  - Scholarly studies:
    - Campbell, Bruce F. A History of the Theosophical Movement Berkeley:1980 University of California Press
    - Godwin, Joscelyn The Theosophical Enlightenment Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press
    - Johnson, K. Paul The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and Myth of the Great White Brotherhood Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think that Mahatma, Ascended master, Great White Brotherhood, and Spiritual Hierarchy should all definitely be merged because these are all different names for the same group of alleged beings. The merged article should be called Masters of the Ancient Wisdom which was the original name used in the literature of the Theosophical Society. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it seems to address my question. If those four articles do all address the same topic under a different name, merging and redirecting is the right answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keraunos. I'll take a look at the references, but assuming they are good (I was sent on a wild goose chase before in this discussion) this goes a long way to addressing my concerns. Fireplace (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No to any merging or redirecting As for reliable sources and verifiability: An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.

An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Magazine (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Magazine hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all, regardless of what other editors think about Theosophy (and I'd like to note that I am not particularly fond of Theosophy), it is without a doubt a notable new religious movement and it's major figures are each deserving of an article just as much as the figures of any other religion. One must note that the Christian Bible is essentially a self-published work of the Roman Catholic Church, with a number of more modern translations also published within the walled garden of Christian religious publishers. Are you FRINGE guys serious about trying to apply this science guideline to matters of spiritual belief, or is this some kind of joke? Because if the former, you've just made yourself look rather ridiculous and this calls into question some of the other uses which has been made of this guideline. Curious Blue (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — User:Curious Blue has been indefinitely blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet.[reply]

- The policy we've been citing in this AfD is WP:Notability, not WP:Fringe. Fireplace (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, unless you are arguing that Theosophy itself is not notable, then I think your efforts are misguided and give the appearance of being an attack on a notable new religious movement. Curious Blue (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a considerable discussion on this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, initiated by the nominator of these articles, and, Fireplace, you've taken part in it yourself. is there so much prejudice against the articles as to try to claim different rationales in different processes?. At Fringe, your argument was that the religion was "pseudo-philosophy." DGG (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the discussion I was referring to. Is this what is known as "forum shopping"? Curious Blue (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this tone is helpful, please assume good faith. Curious Blue: The issue isn't whether the religion itself is notable -- it is. The issue is whether the individual deities of its pantheon are notable per the "significant coverage in independent sources" standard. DGG: There is a WP:N aspect of this discussion, appropriate for AfD. There is *also* a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE aspect, appropriate for flagging at the fringe noticeboard and for discussion on the individual talk pages. This isn't forum shopping -- there are multiple aspects to the discussion. Fireplace (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. My apologies, I did go too far with that forum shopping remark. Otherwise, though I stand by my comments as I was careful to talk about appearances leaving open the possibility that the appearances were just that, surface only. Curious Blue (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited these articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. An insult appears the text of this nomination also: The listed pages represent "Masters of Wisdom" according to Theosophy. In the nomination, they are described as "a... thing ..." What does that mean? How would people respond if a Catholic Saint or Archangel were referred to as "a... thing ..." ? Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.

Not an "obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment [sic]": Not "Victorian", it started in the late 1800s and continues today; not one movement, but several; not "spiritualist", Theosophy and its descendants are part of Western esoteric tradition, forerunner of the modern New Age movement which generates a marketplace of billions of dollars a year today. Theosophy also has significant history in India. Google Books search for "Theosophy" shows 9,780 books. How many Google webhits? Over 2,400,000. Google tests have their flaws, but a number that large can't qualify as "obscure".
Notable and verifiable: Inconsistent referencing is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. References can be found; Google Books shows hundreds of hits for each title, and Google Scholar over a hundred each. (The searches are not simple; some of the names have alternate spellings). Further on notability: here are a few Theosophists... poet WB Yeats; composer Alexander Scriabin; Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools. Van Morrison's 1982 album Beautiful Vision states in its liner notes that the lyrics were influenced by a Theosophical book describing the teachings of Djwal Khul, one of the articles listed in this AfD.
Not a WP:walled garden: Examples that link to the listed pages within a few clicks: Philosophy - Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, notable people - Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (Some were Theosophists, but not all. The point is they link in a few clicks to the nominated pages showing there is no walled garden).
References: It is not unusual for articles on religion to be based on references published by members of the religion. Examples: Ecumenical council, Eucharist (Catholic Church) , John of Damascus, Full communion ...each have no references not published by Catholic sources. Many religious articles on Wikipedia currently have no references at all. Examples: Divine Liturgy, Council of Ephesus, Veneration, Church Fathers. (No specific meaning in choice of examples, just for illustration). And, some of the nominated pages do have non-Theosophy-related references. I've not vetted them in detail, but I found these in a quick review: University of California Press, State University of New York Press, North Atlantic Books, Kessinger Publishing, Baker Book House, Sophia Perennis.
Summary: The topics are notable and verifiable; not a WP:walled garden; they are part of a religious philosophy that has influenced Western society and others for over a hundred years. A religion may be small, but that does not mean its information should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Some of my comment may end up cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, because that closely-related topic was nominated separately for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Keep all. There are dozens of subjects, from Xenu to Mary Baker Eddy, that might with equal justice be claimed to "have no notability beyond an obscure spiritual movement." This is a serious misreading of the notion of "notability," which is generally passed if a subject has generated a considerable literature - even if that literature is made mostly by believers for believers. FWIW, this seems to marginalize Theosophy and its offshoots more than is justified: for much of the twentieth century, the theosophical stream was the major current in Western esotericism, even if that stream became diminished in favour of others over the last third of the twentieth century. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This entry has 9 sources all tackling the subject in a an appropriate manner for their use the breadth and depth of these sources confirms both notability and verifiability. I would suggest that the user who started the afd is simply "unaware" of the subject because they are not interested in/an expert in the field.

I'd like to point out that notability is relative, not absolute, else few things would pass it. For example, as far as most of the world's 6 billion people are concerned, football (as played in America, not soccer) is a minority sport with little following or notability. I'd wager that the 90% of the world's population couldn't tell you what month the super bowl is played in, let alone which team won it. If notability was absolute you'd simply look at the fact that the game isn't played or watched anywhere else in the world except in a few specialist circles, then you'd look at the percent of the world's population who care about it (basically less than half of the US population), then you'd look at the people who don't care about it (most of the world's population), and you'd declare that football was not notable in absolute terms. - perfectblue (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This content would be a lot more accessible to a general audience if it were condensed and merged to a single article, or one main article with a few linked articles. If merging isn't acceptable I'd have to suggest deletion. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and as for merging, not only do I not see the point but the seven rays and ascended master teachings articles would be far too long with all the info on the ascended masters in them as well. This is what we do when articles are too long - split them. Just a long standing opinion of mine that it just looks tidier having separate articles on subjects where possible rather than having one huge article with an awkward title, which in this case would be on far too broad a topic, that people get redirected to.

Saying the ascended masters have no notability outside of theosophy is a silly rationale, just like saying the 1976 Wimbledon Championships have no notability outside of tennis and therefore all those articles should be deleted. There are published sources on this subject, therefore there is enough verifiable information.

I can't see what makes the articles on the ascended masters unmaintainable. I can, however, share User:Jack-A-Roe's concerns above of an obvious personal POV influence in the nominator's rationale for this whole thing... - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the very least, these articles need to be considered independently. There may be cases where some of these can be merged, but others have significant attention devoted to them within Theosophy. As long as it is clearly identified within the article (which it seems to be in most cases) that these figures are specific to theosophy and their existence is the opinion of Theosophists rather than established fact, I don't see any NPOV problems. Notability needs to be resolved by individual cases of merging and expanding, rather than with a blanket vote. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per Clay, these articles should be considered independently. Some may be a bit stubby right now, but that is not cause for deletion. —Whig (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing balance for the articles by adding a third party skeptical viewpoint: I added to the articles about the “Masters” that Madame Blavatsky spoke of in her lifetime the skeptical view of scholar K. Paul Johnson, who maintains that the “Masters” were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. According to Johnson:

The Master Morya was actually Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, the most powerful roya patron of the Theosophical Society. Maharajah Singh died in 1885.

The Master Kuthumi was actually Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, a member of the Singh Saba, an Indian independence movement organization and Sikh reform movement.

Djwal Khul was actually Dayal Singh Majithia, a member of the Singh Saba.

The Master Hilarion was actually Ooton Liato, a stage magician from Cyprus whom she met in New York City in 1873.

These are all referenced to the appropriate page in Johnson’s book Initiates of Theosophical Masters Albany, New York:1995 State University of New York Press.

The other "Masters" were apparently added by C.W. Leadbeater in his book The Masters and the Path.

In Hindu mythology, Sanat Kumara is a minor deity. Sanat Kumara is mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's most important work The Secret Doctrine. Keraunos (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, today I found out that it was Alice A. Bailey who added the other “Masters” in her 1922 book Initiation, Human and Solar. C.W. Leadbeater wrote about the same ones in more detail in his 1925 book The Masters and the Path. Keraunos (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I found an even earlier reference today in my library for the “masters” were not claimed to have been encountered by Madame Blavatsky in her lifetime. They are all mentioned in the 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Keraunos (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there is no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - the sited references only mention the subject twice. Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO guidelines. The article is only 3 sentences on the subject. There should be a page that lists all the deities with a brief description. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to Keep following Keraunos' additions of several third-party, reliable sources providing significant coverage. As I've said elsewhere, I'm saddened however by the quality of this discussion. Analogies to Catholic Saints are inappropriate -- aside from WP:OTHERCRAP, there are books like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Catholic Saints that establish third-party notability. Arguments of the form "theosophy is notable, therefore its deities are notable" are a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Arguments of the form "this AfD is motivated by anti-new-religion prejudice" both fails to AGF and is irrelevant to the WP:N criterion. Fireplace (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe OUP makes the bulk of its money from publishing the Bible (it used have a UK monopoly, together with Cambridge--don't know if it still does) and OU was explicitly founded and endowed as a Christian organization. Therefore anything about Christian saints published by them is by your method of reasoning not 3rd party. This can be extended. Nothing about activities in the US can be N unless we find sources by those in other countries. Nothing by black authors is notable, unless those of other races write about it. Nothing by males is notable unless there are substantial publications about it by females. Nothing, in fact, written by humans will be notable until extraterrestrials discover us and start compiling their galactic encyclopedia. I am of course merely joking, but to show that at some point there is a cut-off by what we mean by "third party" or "independent". You have found yourself saying one rather extreme position, and if I were to say that any Religion, however small, determines its own notabiliy, I would be as far out in the opposite.

So the real question is where does Theosophy fall? Maybe its not a line, but a range: I'd say that it was large enough for its first level divine entities and organizations and leaders to be notable, but not below that, whereas the Christian church is large enough to accept the notability of not just the trinity, but all the saints. I think even here I wouldn't accept the lower level of "blessed" It's unfortunate that we are in the situation where the choice is N/~N. It makes these problems more difficult than they need be. DGG (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see why we'd delete this sort of thing; theosophy may be "an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment" (though I've heard of it, which seems to count for something!), but the details of it are certainly of historical interest to the same extent they would be if contemporary. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- St. Germain article now matches other articles: I restored St. Germain’s alleged previous incarnations to the St. Germain article so it would match the other articles, but I kept it short and didn’t reinsert all the other material that was there before. Also, so it would match the other articles, I restored the Theosophy template to the St. Germain article. Finally, I added the encyclopedia reference from The Encyclopedia of American Religion and the skeptical scholarly books so that the references to the St. Germain article would match the other articles. Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Pop culture factoids added: To round out the articles, I included instances of the appearance of the Master Jesus and Sanat Kumara in comic books in a popular culture section. (I am an avid comic book reader, fan, and collector.) Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Key figures in religious movemrnts are automatically significant. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I don't see how these articles cause a problem. They have sufficient notability and have reliable sources that support their existence/notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. It's a straight copy and paste of at least two papers on this subject, concatenated together. See here, here, and here. Given that Mplampla (talk · contribs) passed off other people's work as xyr own when writing the article text, I don't believe xyr assertions that the images were xyr own work. So I've deleted those, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End-To-End Reconfigurability

Unencyclopedic, and advertisement-like. No independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, borderline speedy as advert, and possible copyvio. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was originaly tagged as speedy - advert, but the tag was removed by a new editors first edit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is just a demonstration of a European Commission funded research project and has nothing to do with an advertisement. Fontas (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cousins (writer)

Notability of this article has been questioned in February 2007; no secondary sources are listed. A PROD was contested with comment: "seems to have major US and UK positions". This does not directly imply notability howver. A search for sources has failed. Cf. the article's edit history and talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as long as some decent independent sources can be found). I have added a source to the article, and an external link to a profile which suggests notability to me, for his publications and academic work. Some independent sources would help. Seems to be plenty to sift through on Google. --Michig (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything independent in my fairly extensive search. "Mark" and "Cousins" are common names and what I mostly found was other people. There should be more academic profiles if the notability exists. --Stormbay (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. A Google News archive search turned up about 20 press mentions and Google Scholar about 100 citations when I searched for "Mark Cousins" + architecture. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the GS references look significant--he seems to be referred to as an important figure in the field. Iwould change it to Mark Cousins (architect). DGG (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Rename maybe, but his leadership positions are clearly notable. Mbisanz (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Length of time that notability has been questioned isn't grounds for deletion. Secondary sources can (and should) be added. (There are tags for article cleanup.) Rray (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Custom Games

Halo clan that does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Discussion on notability has been ongoing on Talk:Real Custom Games, but article author has failed to produce any reliable and genuinely independent sources for notability. No Google News Archive hits, no Alexa ranking for the clan Web site. —Caesura ^(t) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a group on Halo, they aren't notable. The article is completely lacking in reliable sources. Even if they were instrumental in creating a playlist, they still aren't notable. --Cyrus Andiron 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable group. I had originally speedied it but removed the tag when the author offered to find and insert more third-party sources. Apparently this did not happen. ... discospinster _talk 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutal There are no other reliable third party source according to Wiki's version of a third party source. However, the Bungie Studios new stories is a third party source as the two are completely separate organizations. However, I will accept the deletion of the article and might possibly look for ways to contribute to the site. Thanks for your time.

GaTech92 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. My prod tag was removed, and I thot that I was being generous, as I don't consider an online group's claim of only 160 members an 'assertion of notability' that would put it above {{db-club}}. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord (manhua)

This is the summary of a fictional topic per WP:NOT#PLOT. Further, it cites no sources and provides no context for understanding the work. Mbisanz (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any information about this one at all. Not even listed in ANN, and appears to be unlicensed. Don't see any chance it could be cleaned up or expanded. Collectonian (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found the publisher's web page for the work here. Given that, with the hanzi name for the comic, possibly someone can find out more about it. Needs major cleanup including context, but if notability can be established, it's a decent stub. I'll hold off !voting pending further research. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I note btw it's not a "fictional topic" -- it's a comic book series with real-world existance. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's certainly mentioned in forums and blogs. Though I'm not sure if notability can be established here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not crazy enough to contribute the info of a manhua I've never read. I'm not sure about the name of the author (in Sino-Vietnamese, his name is "Đặng Chí Huy", and I think the pinyin is "Deng Zhi Hui", I don't know Hong Kong language). Warlord is informated to be published by Ocean Creative Company Limited and it's published in Vietnam by Kim Dong Publisher by the name "Võ Thần", with its original name "Warlord". It's actually not a joke, a lie or something else like this. I'm deadly serious. See this Warlord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishishin (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and probably WP:N, no sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a copyvio of the band's website with no non-infringing version to revert to (could have been speedied under CSD G12 but five days have passed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore's Marching Ravens

Plagiarism of the Marching Raven's website. Dalekusa (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though I wrote parts of this myself and REFERENCED the original source at the bottom of the article, if you want completely original content for this article, I'll write it. I do have a real job, so I can't write it immediately. I also don't have time to sit around and police Wikipedia and destroy the intent by making sure it only contains information I deem worthy. Jgaffney (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band itself IS notable, as it is one of the few official NFL marching bands, however I do agree the page needs to be greatly cleaned up, with the possible copyvios removed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this version and create a non-copyvio stub. --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate plagiarism, and I think there should be zero tolerance for it. The topic is worthwhile-- most NFL teams don't have their own marching band, after all-- but author needs to write about this in his/her own words. If you're simply cutting and pasting someone else's work, you're not actually creating an article. Mandsford (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-corp/vandalism. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XNW

Delete. NN wrestling promotion. Fails Google test. Not sourced. Creator of article had previously vandalized another notable wrestling promotion's page by inserting the same info found in this new article. EndlessDan 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:41, December 26, 2007

Mañana Será Otro Día

There is no assertion of importance here, but since this previously passed an AFD with a resounding keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mañana Será Otro Dia, under the formerly misspelled title), I'm listing it here. It is basically a disambiguation page with external links, mentioning a film and telenovela of this title, and the directors of each (redlinked). I don't know if these works are notable; for what it's worth neither the title nor the directors have pages on the Spanish Wikipedia. If somebody improves this article in such a way that demonstrates notability, I will withdraw this nomination. Currently the only mainspace oncoming link is from List of soap operas. The previous debate included many votes that it was notable in its home country, but I don't see evidence of that given in the article. The debate also included many votes for "keep and expand," which hasn't been done in the two years since then. Rigadoun (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can't have a dab page with no internal links. Google didn't come up with anything prominent. I have to agree with what the nom is saying here. Singu larity 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless dab page, contains no internal links. I, too, could not find any reliable sources reporting on either the film or the TV series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and pointless article. Probably in a different language anyway. Tavix (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't salt if anyone wants to make articles on these films if they really are notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (crew)

Unreferenced and non-notable hip-hop "crew" (not an actual group, mind you, just members of different groups that purportedly associate with each other). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 18.96.6.79 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom- no notability, doesn't meet WP:NOTE cf38^talk 09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit

Companion to An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan. Listed here to consolidate discussion and pre-empt further philosophical postings and revelations. Similar OR and soapboxing issues to AOHStS. Acroterion _(talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, NPOV violation, soapboxing, etc., (or hoax?) --Dawn bard (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dawn bard -Verdatum (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real subject of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that has a fair amount of discussion in Christian exegesis (and a couple of sentences in blasphemy). But this isn't an article about it. This isn't even an article relating to it. For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan, which all apply here, delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced OR. And also because it makes my eyes bleed when I try to read it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Moala

Non notable. "The runner up on Season 3 of NZ Idol. The 21-year-old is a native of Tonga and a student at the University of Auckland.(...) Last but not least, her father is famous for his very long and distinctive side burns. He is also very supportive towards Indira. On Monday 25th June she became a wife to a lovely man". Indeed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have notability at the moment. So redirect to NZ Idol. The history can stay intact. I (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's non-noteable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Majoreditor (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as falling well short of notability guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. First, let me say firmly that this AfD was not untimely -- several months is a generous allowance to give after a first "no consensus" AfD before relisting. "Speedy" keep comments were thus ignored. Having said that, there is no agreement on whether the theme unifying this list is notable. The list is sourced, and has improved since the first AfD, so no reason of policy compels deletion. If the article's present form seems unwieldy, editing is always an option. For now, this list is kept by default. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of government agencies in comics

Renominating due to several unfixed (and in my opinion unfixable) issues which remain after original AfD several months ago (result of which was "no consensus". Groupthink (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Too soon for you to try this again when you have nothing new to say. Such impatient repetition is disruptive per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was four months ago. That's not too soon in my book. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL says: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page." I have allowed a reasonable amount of time to elapse, editors have had time to improve the page, and I do have "something new" to say, namely that none of the numerous issues with this article have been addressed, leading me to believe that they cannot be adequately addressed. With respect, all of your points are spurious. Groupthink (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no improvement in article since the last time; it's still essentially a random collection of trivia. <eleland/talkedits> 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden. There is no time limit for improvement on an article. Also, this nomination is vague. "Several unfixed {and in my opinion unfixable) issues" is a pretty vague description of why an article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, read Wikipedia:Speedy keep to see why your recommendation of "speedy keep" is silly. Secondly, "There is no time limit for improving the article" is completely misconstruing the point, which not about time limits, but about fixability. Finally, this nomination isn't vague – its basis is pretty black-and-white: there are no less than seven warnings at the top of the article, none of which have been addressed in months, leading me to believe that the numerous issues with this article are unaddressable. Prove me wrong by rewriting the article so that it 1) is adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards, 2) is devoid of original research and unverifiable claims, 3) has a topic which meets Wikipedia standards for notability, 4) has an introduction which provides sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, 5) makes a clear distinction between fact and fiction, 6) conforms to the Manual of Style, and 7) does not describe works and elements of fiction in an in-universe style. My money says that you can't do it. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first of all, I've read it - thanks. Secondly, I'm not misconstruing the point at all. One of the reasons for deletion cited was the length of time issues remain with the article. Since there is no time limit, issues can remain uncorrected indefinitely. And yes, the nomination is vague, because you don't spell out the issues with the article that warrant deletion in the nomination. I disagree that the issues within the article are unaddressable. All of the issues you listed in your reply to me can be easily fixed. It's not incumbent upon me to rewrite the article to prove you wrong. AfD isn't a tool for you to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Rray (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AfD isn't a tool for myself or anyone else to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Fortunately, that isn't what's happening here. Groupthink (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding "speedy keep": You're welcome. Since you have read the guideline in question, I hope that you're aware that this nomination meets none of the criteria for being "speedily kept". You (and everyone else who has recommended "speedy keep" here) might want to re-read the article to refresh your memory as to what exactly "speedy keep" means. Groupthink (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read it again, and you're right. A speedy keep is unwarranted in this nomination. Thanks for pointing that out. Rray (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me direct instructions on how to rewrite the article to meet your concerns in this AfD discussion. Of course, you also told me you didn't think I could do it, so you're probably just using a rhetorical device to try to make a point. Fortunately, your opinion that I can't do so won't be the deciding factor in this AfD. Rray (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not only has the person using the Groupthink sock puppet actively tried to prevent any improvement of the article, he refuses to accept the fact that his/her main objections to the original article have already been addressed. --Basique (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your baseless charge that I am engaging in sock puppetry is insulting, rude, does not assume good faith, and precludes any response to any point you might make. Please retract your accusation and apologize. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I cannot prove my allegation of sock puppetry I therefore retract it and apologize. But I will not assume good faith on your part. Your confrontational actions as recorded in the history and discussion page of List of government agencies in comics, your continued threat spam on my talk pages when I attempted to update the status of the page after improving it by adding the references and changes you yourself requested, and your refusal to mediate make that impossible. --Basique (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are all your main points from the article page (It needs additional references or sources for verification - this was changed per your request, It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - this was proven false by a peer review involving members of the Comics Project, Its notability is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be listed for deletion - this is a multi-sourced list page, Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter - this was also corrected by the peer review, It may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction - this was never an issue, It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards - this was also corrected by the peer review, It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup - the article's title is List of government agencies in comics). After these issues were addressed and corrected I removed the relevant tags from the page, you reverted that change and left this warning on my talk page. This showed me that I needed mediation since you were no longer being reasonable, you refused to accept the changes you requested and yet you made no statement as to their accuracy of lack of. It was at this point that I washed my hands of the issue and walked away. Unlike the first time you put this page up for deletion, this time you decided to notify me that you had in fact nominated it again, but you left a bad pointer which directed me to the old nom. And here we are again. --Basique (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is the theme "Government agencies in comics" really notable? And if it isn't, is a list of such things not even less notable? There are major underlying issues with this article that may, as the nom said, be unfixable, as there is (currently) no sign that points the other direction. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is useful for directing readers to other pages; however, there should be more information included to make it clear which serises these organizations feature in. Needs more context. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, needs more cowbell! ;-) But seriously, utility considerations must be balanced against the seven concerns that I listed above. Wikipedia does not and should not include everything useful about everything. Groupthink (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone not want more cowbell? But your 7 concerns could be applied to many list type articles that are not FA quality. I think this is potentially a good list, although the presentation/context needs some attention. Additionally, the article is sourced (drawing from primary sources) and although it needs a rewrite, AfD is not cleanup, and there is no time limit on article improvement. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random collection of plot elements. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree something has to be done with it but just deleting it all wont help. Many entries have there own respective articles so there would be no need to have much written for them (just keep it simple and list) while, others without individual articles, do need some explanitory text... these entries are also useful for linking too when these lesser known agencies appear in fiction character biographies --- Paulley (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you want to keep this article because you think it's useful and you like it? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Groupthink (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply...umm first i didn't say that i liked the article, in fact my suggestion would indicate that as it stands i am far from liking the article because it needs improvement, but its pretty obvious that you just don't like it. I do find it useful and if your going to tag me for that maybe you should read my comment again as that tag only applies when you don't give a context in what that usefulness is. --- Paulley (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, actually. I do like this article. I think it's clever, novel, appealing (at least to those who enjoy the fictional worlds found within comic books), and would make a great resource on a fan site or comics wiki – but not here. Groupthink (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the previous objections were met adequately, so the reason for nomination fails. Lists can be encyclopedic, and the only way to get rid of decent articles such as this will be to convince people here otherwise, which is not going to happen. "in-universe" only means the sort of fan fiction that carries of the fictional environment under he deliberate pretense of it being real. A discussion of these agencies as if they had a real life existence, for example,rather than a discussion of their role in fiction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from article: "The Agency was formed by Amanda Waller to serve as a small, quasi-independent branch of Task Force X. It performed global operations which were vital to the security of American interests. Valentina Vostok brought former NYPD Lieutenant Harry Stein into the Agency as an operative. Adrian Chase the Vigilante and Christopher Smith Peacemaker were contract operatives for the Agency." That's as in-universe as can be, and is one of many examples that indicate that the in-universe objections are a long way from being met. You also make no mention of the notablity objections, the secondary sourcing objections, the encyclopedic context objections, etc., etc. I agree that lists can be encyclopedic. This one is not, and never will be. Groupthink (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fanboy fluff doesn't belong. Struct (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting you, please explain your position. --Basique (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of fanboy fluff. Now, please explain your position. Struct (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my position was made quite plain in my earlier posts. And of course I know your position, you blanked the page under review (I will exercise good faith and chalk this up to a misunderstanding on your part). And attacked a member of the Comics Project who was trying to improve the page. Then you decided not to respond to both of his reasoned queries for evidence backing up the reason you gave for blanking the page, which was copyvio. In fact that was your last action until posting here on the 20th. And that is when I first noticed that you and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings, down to using the month and year of the warning. --Basique (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh darn, you found me out. Yes, it's true, User:Struct and I use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings. In fact, I use the exact same formatting style as hundreds, even thousands of other users. That's right, I command an army of sockpuppets! MUHAHA! Sigh... please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and then apologize again for being woefully misinformed. Groupthink (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't remember using the term sock puppet anywhere in that post, do you see something that I don't? I lay out a series of facts and they are open to interpretation, obviously since you interpreted them the way you did, you chose not to exercise good faith. Therefore I await your apology. --Basique (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You overtly accused me of puppetry in a prior post, and then you implied puppetry in this post (how else is one supposed to interpret "You [struct] and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style..."? Once again, you have no constructive arguments to offer, so you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I'm saying anything, but there do seem to be some interesting correlations between Special:Contributions/Struct (who almost completely stopped making large amounts of edits after Jan 15th 2007) and Special:Contributions/Groupthink (who made their first edit on Feb 25th 2007 and then started making serious edits after May 18th 2007). The two users also coincidentally have been making comments on the same day on Jericho (June 24th 2007) and this article (Sept 19th 2007), and in this AFD, Groupthink as the nominator and Struct as a delete vote. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer as to why this other user has been idle and has had my back. However, I do know that I have nothing to hide, so feel free to ask an admin to launch an investigation. Now could we get back to the AfD, please? Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombegalu

Non notable and non important. Delete. Metal Head (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, non important, incomprehensible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if anything's useful here, it belongs in the Navaratri or Dasara articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dasara or Navaratri. Otherwise, definition appears to be verifiable.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - What's the purpose of this? Doesn't make sense. Turgidson (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT unless anyone can explain the significance of this. I find that India-related articles are quite common at newpages, many of which are dicdef-ish stubs that give little context - probably due to India's huge population and the fact that a significant number there can speak English, especially those in that country with Internet access.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taarma

Non notable. It sounds like this band was created by some fan. Nothing links to them, and they have no notable attributes. Metal Head (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While simply being a black metal band from Afghanistan might arguably, in itself, be notable, this really could have been speedied as {{db-band}} for absolutely no assertion of WP:Notability. --Storkk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per User:Storkk. For future reference there's probably less than 10 notable, entry worthy one man bands in the world. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenM

Janitorial nomination after I declined speedy deletion. On the one hand, it's an article about a hotel company which hasn't built any hotels! On the other, it's founder is (presumably) notable (blue linked), the company has won an award, and is apparently the subject of multiple non-trivial news reports. Crystal ball or notable? You decide. kingboyk (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hotel chain that has no hotels yet, but wishes to talk up an entirely new concept in hotels looks like a crystal ball, and an attempt to get some additional publicity for the concept. The founder may well be notable, but notability isn't inherited by anything he is involved in Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld --Storkk (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to be the second person to simply say "per Mayalld" but it expresses my argument completely. -Verdatum (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lennert de Jong, creator of the article, is Distribution and Business Development Director for CitizenM [2]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there's no way of verifying that User:Lennertdejong is actually him. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you serious? Surely not. No connection between Lennert de Jong, Business Development Director for CitizenM and User:Lennertdejong. Well, what a coincidence, then. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you that there may be a connection, but it's not verifiable. User:BillGates probably isn't Bill Gates and User:George W. Bush probably isn't George W. Bush. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A quick Google search shows that the company may be notable, but they haven't even built any hotels. Re-create the article when the hotels actually materialize. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - obviously transformed since nom, slam-dunk keeper.--Doc^g 16:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin mnemonics

A list of mnemonics for remembering Latin is not encyclopedic. Prod declined. Mangostar (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics. --Simple Paradox 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what I see instead is a well referenced article about the bits of subliterary verse and oral lore that once were a major part of most educated Europeans' and American's upbringing, and as such continue to resonate in literature and song. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been heavily expanded since nom with substantial sourcing. It still doesn't have much structure as an article but that's an editing issue. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I looked, and I still didn't find the part of WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics". Where exactly is that located? Mandsford (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what state this was in when the AFD was initiated, but as of now, this is NOT merely a list of mnemonics, it is an article about a concept that clearly exists outside of wikipedia. Well researched and well referenced, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. Transformed since nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was retro me, article. DS (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan

Contested prod. A fascinating essay on human sacrifice and demonic possession, refreshingly free of sources. Patent OR and a personal manifesto. Acroterion _(talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written in the first person, cites no sources at all, is grossly biased, and tells us outright at the start that it is describing the "heretofore unknown". It violates almost every content policy in the book, from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view through Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is zero salvageable content here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything already said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#SOAP, perhaps WP:HOAX, but definitely WP:OR. --Storkk (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author created another article: The blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit. Same type of stuff. I tagged it with "prod" but will add it to AfD if the prod is contested. Delete for both of them, original research, soapbox, NPOV, unsourced, etc. --Dawn bard (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and listed the companion article for AfD to consolidate the discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also Delete for other article created by editor.xC | ☎ 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G -Verdatum (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea-upon-ice

Delete as WP:MADEUP - previously PROD - initial contrib removed PROD Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's probably made up and you'll never get reliable sources on the article anyway - the entire article is based on a blog. Littleteddy (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, though I wouldn't put the US Patent Office past granting him a patent on it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where something is WP:MADEUP, and relies on a self-published web source, it is A7 as NN-web, however I detect a determined hoaxer here, so AfD it will be Mayalld (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. When something is made up like this, as that very page tells you, it is original research that goes through the normal deletion process. CSD #A7 applies, as it says, to people, companies, groups, organizations, and web content. This subject is none of those things. It's purportedly a type of beverage. It's not a web site, an Internet meme, a podcast or any of the other web content to which WP:WEB applies. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn fails WP:RS. Blog reference fails WP:NOR. Sting_au Talk 12:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP Doc Strange (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the last sentence the article is a joke or hoax.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Iced tea --Storkk (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As (one of) the original prodder(s). Clearly someone having fun.--Kateshort forbob 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sugar Fg2 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a joke article about a series of joke blog posts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach ronald graham

Delete as non-notable. Local elected officials are not automatically notable per WP:BIO, and neither are coaches for non-notable sports teams. Wikipedia is not a memorial site Mayalld (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO requires that a person must have reliable sources published about them. A Google search returns only a news article regarding his death ([3]). Littleteddy (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources given in article. Fails WP:BIO. Sting_au Talk 12:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn --Storkk (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lt.quade and the hit squad

Declined prod for a seemingly non-notable rock group. Article has been pruned substantially by others since but still doesn't seem notable for my money. tomasz. 09:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable band. Article fails WP:MUSIC. Sting_au Talk 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could have been speedied as there is no assertion of WP:Notability. --Storkk (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be reverted back before the ip vandal. The article was much longer. I did not revert since it has the AFD tag. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. i disagree. since this group is most likely a hoax or a self-promotion anyway, and since there was no encyclopaedic content to any of the removed material, and since the state of the article when AfD'd was the same state that the nominating editor (me) found it in, and since past revisions are easily accessible through browsing the page history, i see no reason it should have been reverted. tomasz. 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus — Caknuck (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, Victrola

My reasons for proposing deletion:

The article is merely a plot summary, a specific violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at point 2;
The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;
The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;
There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nehwyn seems to have listed several Gossip Girl episodes, all separately, which is awkward because I think the same thing applies to all of them; there's AfD discussion incld. my comments at the other discussions. See comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Handmaiden's Tale,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor, Victrola‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Waldorf Must Pie! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen Candles‎ -- phoebe/(talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an individual nomination, not a mass deletion process. As for comments on other deletion debates, please state here those that you feel apply to this episode, and please keep in mind that inclusion is not a reason for notability (i.e. the argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not an acceptable argument around here). This debate pertains to this particular article. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - however when you are referring to episode articles the "we kept those we gotta keep this" argument (and it's opposite) does apply, because if articles on Episode A and C are kept, but B is deleted ... it creates inconsistency. Anyway, I lack sufficient knowledge if the subject to cast a vote, except that if this is kept it should have a disambiguation note added directing users to Victor, Victoria as this is a not-unreasonable erroneous spelling. 23skidoo (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not apply. The "inconsistence" you point out is the spirit of WP:EPISODE: only if a particular episode is notable in itself it gets its own page; otherwise, it stays in the "List of..." with the others. This implies that not all episodes of the same show get their own page (some do, some do not). --Nehwyn (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate just over half the episodes of a new show for a deletion, and not the others, and they all appear to be roughly the same in terms of prominence, notability, etc, then I think it's reasonable to ask what reasoning you're applying and how all the episodes relate. Talking about how notable the episodes are within the context of a show as a whole, and how prominent the show is compared to the many, many other television programs that have an article for every episode, is entirely reasonable. Besides, you're making extra work for everyone by not listing them as a group. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask: I nominated some episodes and not others because I didn't get to them. I will with time. And again - this is an individual deletion, not a mass deletion. Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phoebe, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1 != 2 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to establish notability in the slightest. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisted a second time and still, nobody cares. Keep relisting until you can get the result that you want. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see above Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) [Note: Comment moved below line][reply]

Question for Nehwyn - If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? I see little in the way of difference from other programs episode articles (eg.Healthy Competition) that helpful editing wouldn't fix.

As an aside, I would also like to state that I feel this Mass nomination brought to AfD was the incorrect first step in a resolution. WP:Episode points this out here, these articles are neither unverifiable nor original research, and should have had a {{notability|episode}} template appended, to allow relevent editors time to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of other episode articles is irrelevant here. This is an individual nomination, so please stick to commenting the article in question. As for your question, even before considering WP:EPISODE, this article fails two even more fundamental Wikipedia guidelines: it makes no claim to real-world notability (a speedy criterion, actually), and is limited to a plot summary without consideration for the real-world significance of its subject matter (a clear violation of WP:NOT). Each of these alone would be grounds for deletion. As for your suggestion that editors could correct the problems, as stated in my nomination above, I do not think that is possible. The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of other episode articles is absolutely relevent if you are taking the position that "Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) " as a basis of notability. And so I repeat my question, If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in discussing hypothetical scenarios in which I would keep or delete other articles. If by my sentence above I've given the opposite impression, I apologise; but on my part, I will stick to commenting the actual state of this article. --Nehwyn (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to get at, is how you are judging this article. And so far it seems that you just dont like it. You claim "The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved." I see no difference between this Article and my previous given example. It too would fail your standard of real world notability. Would 'Nielsen Ratings' and their ilk be what you require for real world notability? In general, I have always respected you opinion and I will again in future debates, but in this case, we differ. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm judging this article is written in the nomination above, and it's based on actual guidelines, not some arbitrary dislike (as in WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for what constitutes notability, what I would require is of no importance - there are set rules, and you can find them on WP:N. This article just fails them. (That said, I appreciate your statement of respect and possibility to differ from our respective opinions, which of course I share.) --Nehwyn (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. To address the nomination reasons:

"The article is merely a plot summary, a specific violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at point 2;"

No, the article is not "merely" a plot summary; but it is mostly a plot summary. The solution to this is to remove or trim the plot summary. The episode guideline gives a guideline as ten words per minute of screen time; a 450-word summary might thus be appropriate under that guildeline, but trimming even further might be appropriate given the minimal amount of non-plot information available.

"The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;"

False, the article specifically mentions that it was an episode of a notable prime-time series which aired on two notable national networks, and was directed by a notable director.

"The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;"

Nothing in WP:EPISODE requires episodes to "stand out" from other epsiodes of the same series, otherwise it would be impossible to have an article for each episode of Star Trek, The Simpsons, or South Park, for example. I might agree, however, that there may not be anything "outstanding" about this episode (or any other Gossip Girl episode) with respect to the domain of all episodes of all TV series; however, the "Dealing with problem articles" section of the episode guildeine specifically says to consider merging or redirecting such articles and to avoid nominating them for deletion.

"There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future.

Pure crystal ballery. Have you examined all the appropriate sources which might reasonably be assumed to contain additional information about the subject? Including offline sources such as TV Guide or Variety magazine? However, I have indicated above how to solve the problems, even without consulting other sources, and none of these solutions involves deleting the article (only removing much of the article's content). The existing entry in List of Gossip Girl episodes seems to be adequate to cover this subject. But according to deletion policy, we don't need to delete articles which contain redundant content, but redirect them. Episode names are always plausible search terms which should be redirected to the page containing the information being sought.

Given the above, the proper solution, based on policies and guidelines, is to redirect. DHowell (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it is to write a better article on the basis of the present one. DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have done everything I can to improve the article. They isn't really that much out there. I could include a list of music featured, but I don't think that would help at this point. At this point, I would like a keep but could support a redirect. At any rate, have another look at the article. SorryGuy Talk 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'll also add apparent alternative spelling of his name to the article. Pigman☿ 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Ghose

I investigated this article. Both Google and Yahoo come up with many different articles under this name... all different people. It appears that this is a bit of a common name. The "Background" links lays no mention of the name Sanjay Ghose. There is not one citations and the one reference has nothing to do with Sanjay Ghose. Not only lack of notability, but may even be a hoax.--Pmedema (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Unlikely to be a hoax - most of the Google results refer to him, including five results on Google News (and other news e.g. [4]), suggesting most of his notability resulted from him being abducted and murdered by militants, maybe WP:BLP1E but I'm not sure. Also a few results including this one suggest he may have been notable as a result of his achievements, certainly there are quite a few sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references in this article lay no mention of Sanjay Ghose. The articles you mention may show the person but all the achievements that were indicated have no basis that I can find.--Pmedema (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely not a hoax. ULFA kidnapped Ghose and reportedly killed him. He is also referred to as "Sanjay Ghosh". See some relevant Google searches here and here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per WP:BLP1E above. Article should focus more on event and reference that in the first section. Sting_au Talk 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. east.718 at 06:45, December 20, 2007

Funsho Ogundipe

Fails WP:MUSIC. TheRingess (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, revisit later. Sources are probably hard to come by. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn article fails WP:MUSIC. Ne refs since January. Sting_au Talk 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sting_au. If notability can ever be established, article can always be recreated. --Storkk (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems marginally notable. RMHED (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. HelenWatt (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of this article in the Daily Sun, as well as this one in Nigeria's The Guardian. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one more reference, not as extensive as the other two, but it does provide some additional material that could be added to the article: Africa on Your Street on bbc.co.uk. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Is The Word

A user questioned what this page was about at the Help Desk, and it doesn't seem to give any context. Another user tagged it as a speedy G1 (patent nonsense) but it has too much coherent content for that. However it's clearly going to need some explanation of what it is about before it is keepable. I've saved it from speedy deletion by bringing it here. No vote from me, yet. AndyJones (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly intended to be the episode guide for some sort of TV show but Google gives no relevant hits at all therefore it is presumably a hoax ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if you are in a mighty hurry, speedy A1. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory - "Wikipedia is not... (an) electronic program guide... although mention of... historically significant programme lists and schedules... may be acceptable" (from WP:NOT#DIR). A Google search ([5]) also returns negative - "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." Littleteddy (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Garbage.--EndlessDan 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the editor who made the Help Desk query. For the record, the article redirected from a user page of the same name. This was unacceptable (and has been fixed), but it does appear that the user in question has made some valid edits to articles for actual TV shows—[6]—and I wondered (assuming good faith and all that) if maybe the original move had somehow been inadvertent and the content should be moved to his/her user page before it's deleted. Just a thought. Probably more trouble than it's worth. Rivertorch (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see that User:Rhys_Is_The_Word has logged on today, so no doubt he'll comment here if that's what he would like. I'm hoping he'll explain what this article is about, also, since googling suggests that there's no TV show with this title. AndyJones (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this show doesn't exist; the name was possibly derived from the show Grease Is the Word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasecarter (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not suitable for an encyclopedia and it's clearly against policy to move your user page to the main article namespace, BUT can we keep it for the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense pages? FWIW, I think the author has used an interesting technique, presenting a weekly blog of his life as if it was a TV show. Oops! Forgot to sign about 30 mins ago Astronaut (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it's not a real TV show or a real anything else. Sadly, BJAODN is extinct, so this can't get moved there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabez Peters

A seaman who died following a shipwreck and was mentioned in a book. Sad, but not particularly notable. Many thousands of seamen have died in a similar manner. Prod notice deleted without explanation except the misleading edit summary "tidy". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another little victory for you? Albatross2147 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a competition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's now an article on the Dundonald (ship), the shipwreck in question and he's mentioned in there. Nick mallory (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still doesn't justify an article on individual crew members. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that this could be deleted because the information is now in another article which is obviously notable. Sorry if I didn't spell that out in simpler terms. Nick mallory (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Wikipedia:Notability says, if a subject is not covered in depth in the sources, but only as part of a larger subject, it should be merged into the article about the larger subject. No deletion is required. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things. Article merger does not involve deletion, or administrator tools, at any stage. Even an editor without an account can do it. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as the seaman was not remembered for anything too notable, apart from dying. Littleteddy (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails WP:BLP1E. Littleteddy (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn a personal diary reference is not exactly "substantive coverage in reliable sources" that from WP:NOTE. Sting_au Talk 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic covered better in ship's article, so redundant. Not a highly plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Maralia (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for now, merging is an editorial decision. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iomanip

Stagnant technical documentation of no relevance to the non-specialist community. It's difficult to see how anything could be added to the article to make it less like a piece of technical documentation. Prod template previously removed by article author. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a poor nomination that has no basis in policy. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and with the purpose of this project. We don't delete information because it is technical, or because it does not have relevance outside of a particular profession. (Consider all of the mathematical, agrichemical, botanical, and astronomical subjects that Wikipedia deals with, for starters.) Wikipedia is both a general and a specialist encyclopaedia. And a quick Google Books search on your part to see how this subject is covered in the literature will show you how this article can be expanded to a full article. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that a random part of the C++ standard library warrants inclusion, and I'd put money on the majority of literature on the subject coming from C++ programming reference manuals. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please familiarize yourself with that policy, too, and read what it actually covers and addresses. It does not cover this, which is an encyclopaedia article about a subject — a subject that those reference manuals (References manuals written by programming experts are perfectly fine sources.) document in depth. Please adhere to our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comment stands. In fact, the parent article (C++ standard library) is also an almost content-free appendix to C++ which should be rolled back into the main programming language article. Anyway, I feel the subject is worth discussion, what with the failure over the last 12+ months of any of these articles go get beyond manual-reiteration status. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your comment is not based on the actual policy, nonetheless. In addition to all of the policies that I recommend that you familiarize yourself with, I recommend that you also familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Editing policy. There is no 12 month deadline for articles to be completed by. I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with all of these policies. Your arguments have no bases in them at all. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand- iomanip is so ubiquitous that I have little doubt it could be expanded into a real article if someone had the time and inclination. --Storkk (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles about software and libraries should not be how-to manuals or lists of member functions. Prose on the encyclopedic aspects (its reason for existence, history of development, criticisms, any news events it played a role in, etc.) would presumably overlap heavily with the main STL article. cab (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a word for an article that isn't complete yet. It is "stub". This article is clearly marked as one. I suggest that you go and review the literature, and see how much has yet to be written on this subject in Wikipedia, before opining about overlap. Wikipedia is not finished. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the boilerplate inclusionist excuse for almost any subject. The likelihood that an article on a random set of function declarations in the C++ standard library is going to be eventually blossom into an accessible description of a notable subject is extremely low. Not all stubs are made equal; some have potential and some don't. This doesn't. It should be deleted, along with its sibling articles, in favour of a more general and less technical approach to the subject matter at C++ standard library. If the C++ standard library article fails to evolve, it too should be deleted and rolled back into C++. Pre-supposing how the encyclopedia will develop by prematurely stubbing articles which are unlikely to ever improve is a bad idea because it encourages duplication of effort. Articles should grow organically outwards from key concepts and be split when they overreach. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C++ standard library. Agree with nom that this would be better as a part (a very small part) of C++ standard library, which isn't exactly bursting at the seams anyway. Could theoretically be a search term though. Recury (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are a comprehensive encyclopedia, comprehending a large number of specialist communities--for each of us, some material will be too detailed to be useful. If it can be deciphered by more general readers, it belongs here. This article is reasonably clear to anyone who knows anything bout programming, and that probably includes tens of millions of people. DGG (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a CS degree and still don't see why what amounts to high-level API documentation belongs on Wikipedia. My shopping list this week is reasonably clear to most English speakers on the planet, but I don't think it's particularly useful to anyone except people who are doing my shopping. Notability is not Google hits and articles are not included solely in terms of notability anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki part and merge rest—Yes, it is another of my "complicated solutions" comments. I sympathize with DGG and Uncle G on the matter of inclusion of content. However, I think that the detail in the table is better suited for Wikibooks and the remaining (expanded) stub would best sit as a section in C++ standard library. The specific Wikibook I have in mind is Understanding C++. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is another viable possibility, since the present article is not very extensive..DGG (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sun

This person fails WP:BIO. He is only known for having given a gift to the Falun Gong founder -i.e. he would fall under WP:BLP1E. He has apparently written to the Wall Street Journal, but it does not appear that the letter was ever published. Even if it was, the letter would not confer notability, otherwise anyone who write a letter to the newspaper would have a wikipedia article! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and a Google search returns no results (as far as I can tell), so the article fails WP:BIO. Littleteddy (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion under CSD A7 (originally by Eliz81). Non-admin closure. --Goobergunch|? 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia lindsey chot

Non-notable artist. Brianga (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per CSD A7. There's alot of text here, but nothing that claims to be notable. I see someone has so tagged it. I don't see this article lasting long. It fails the "forgot to capitalize the last name" test, for example. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant WP:SPAM. No need to look any further: scores 4 Ghits, all for someone/something Vietnamese. "Julia Chot is an amazing artist" and "Julia Chot is my idol" are not valid reasons to block a deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable, as tagged. Fails verifiability, and looks to be hoaxalicious if that bit at the bottom is an example of her work... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus default to keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 440 Alliance

Unreferenced, no assertion of significance beyond an unsourced claim of appearing on All Songs Considered and The Next Great American Band (neither of which makes it inherently notable). B (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Group seems to meet notability requirements--two albums and appearances on NPR and FOX programs. There is in fact an NPR source, so the NPR reference is not unsourced. Badagnani (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No allmusic. Not part of the Top-12 so they did NOT actually appear on the Fox TV series. No evidence of charts/tours/awards. NPR link is part of series on "...artists...off the radar..." ie, not yet notable. Self-produced albums don't count towards notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can find several articles on them (adding to notability) but it would help if the myspace and youtube links disappeared via wp:links and if the second CD was on a label (first was indie). Borderline case but might pass if we had more info. Pharmboy (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, this is a particularly tough one for me. A strict application of the guidelines would probably make me come out with a very weak delete, but they seem so close that one good source would put them over the top. I'm considering them under criterion 7 of WP:MUSIC (representative of particular musical style or local scene), but even then I'm having difficulty nailing down the kind of source that I'd like to see. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Smoking Blend

This product is non-notable, and the only information out there seems to come from either purveyors or web forums. It's dangerous to provide unauthenticated lists of ingredients like this for products that are already dubious. I'm reminded of all the "herbal ecstasy" a while back that touted itself as such, but turned out to derive its effect from TFMPP. I've nominated this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spice (drug). I'm also nominating the following article linked to this one, which shares obvious similarities.

If this article is deleted, mention of it should also be purged from Spice (disambiguation). deranged bulbasaur 06:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why? wouldn't just de-linking be enough? --Storkk (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. No independent 3rd party references. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gtstricky --Storkk (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article looks like an advert. If the list of ingredients was properly sourced and the packaging sizes puff removed I would probably be inclined to support it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Singu larity 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inept

Say Goodbye to This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- band's album, added by Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this Chicago band would appear to be notable from the claims of touring; however, a deeper look indicates that it doesn't quite make WP:MUSIC at this time, though they seem to be going in the right direction. They have a single EP out, which appears to be self-published, and a claim of an album coming out next year. I've been unable to find any media coverage of the band except for a mention of the Chicago radio station's competition, and their touring seems to consist of being a local band playing Chicago-area venues on the Warped Tour, one of 60 bands playing the Dirtfest events, and a local opener for the Chicago shows of Taste of Chaos. Technically, they have played with the many bands mentioned here, but it would appear they were on the second or third stages. I don't see indications of national touring, media coverage, major awards, notable label involvement, or anything else that would confer notability at this point. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google News archives turns up empty. Perhaps they will be notable sometime soon; but, for now, delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. To Tony Fox, you might also want to include the article for their EP in this nomination (Say Goodbye to This). For other users, earlier I nominated the individual band member articles here. --TM 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here yet. Simply becayse a band plays in many places does not mean that reliable sources have noticed them yet. If reliable sources haven't noticed them, Wikipedia should not either. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not notable yet, fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all. If you knew anything about this band from visiting absolutepunk.net, The Daily Chorus, or even keep tabs anywhere, they are a big name across the midwest, and spreading across the nation. SOME of those bands listen have been played with at festivals, yes, but most have not. They just played with Papa Roach, just got done with dates with Quietdrive, have played regularly with Trapt, Madina Lake, and many others. This band will be exploding soon, and I see no reason for their page to be deleted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there being "soon." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability must come first, before an article. If you have reliable sources that indicate the band meets the music guidelines, please point them out for consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of useless and pointless articles all over the place. It's a shame that you and some others are this concerned about a national touring band that is unsigned. Go to their MySpace page and check their tour dates (unless you think they're lying about that too), check with other bands they've played with, talk to producers, A&R people, booking agents, venues. Just because you haven't heard of them or know anything about them, doesn't mean nobody else doesn't, and they aren't a notable band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They also meet guidelines 7, 11, and 12, and soon to be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing about them isn't the issue. What matters is READING about them. Sounds are ephemeral and hard to capture in a permanent, verifiable form, and what I hear is hard to cite in a bibliography. If you have written words rather than spoken words, it would go a long way towards helping keep this article around. Also, it should be noted, just because Wikipedia contains other articles that have not yet been deleted, but should, does not excuse this article of its shortcomings. ANd if it meets guidelines 7, 11, and 12, please provide references to verify that it does. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't publish what hasn't already been published in reliable sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Lara❤Love 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable yet. They will probably be notable soon, however. --Shark face 217 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick DeBruhl

Deletion nomination Was proded for lack of notability. Prod was removed after a few references were added. I still don't think there's much here. This is a non-notable local consumer affairs reporter. He's won a smattering of local awards, but not much. Having a job and doing it well does not make one notable. Even a really cool job like TV reporter. I don't see anything here that passes the relevent guidelines, such as WP:N and WP:BIO. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. As above, just being on TV isn't enough to warrant a full entry. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any of the 'awarding' agencies as notable enough for an article here. Probably a nice guy, but seems to fail notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Idea Star Singer. Pastordavid (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjini Haridas

Reviewing my decision of this article that I’ myself created. She is a TV anchor only famous through ISS-07, & no other programs. Apart from this, no other independent source. I now think no need of keeping it as an encyclopedia article (not now, may be later). Let you decide what you think. Avinesh Jose (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you can request a speedy deletion by placing {{G7}} on the page. Littleteddy (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (nominator & author) No, since there are other users involved in the editing, I am not sure about placing CSD G7. That’s why I suggested AfD / to be decided by established users / admins decision. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though she is insufferable, Idea Star Singer is one of the most successful programs in Malayalam TV, and that IMO, whether we like her or not, makes her quite notable. Tintin 13:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (nominator & author): It's not a question of liking her or not (otherwise I wouldn't create). Lack of reliable third-party sources (WP:SOURCES) google search provides all results to blog sites, except this . Well, WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid (WP:BLP). The existing article says little info & nothing more to write. I doubt a real need of encyclopedia article about her at this stage. It doesn't meet notability criteria (see Entertainers) also. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be sources in print - magazines like Vanitha must surely have dedicated several pages for her - but these don't have archives online, and it is usually infernally difficult to search the archives of the Malayalam newspapers. There is one report here on the Miss Kerala contest 2000 but it mentions little more than the name of her parents. Tintin 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha is dedicated several pages for even successful female LIC agents (LOL). But I couldn't find any independent news coverege as no contribution, awards and records from the person per WP:BIO. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idea Star Singer, unless some non-trivial mentions in Malayalam publications are provided as sources. utcursch | talk 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per utcursch, a brief bio is already there ISS which is satisfactory. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : She is a TV anchor only famous through ISS - I don't really agree with this. She has been anchoring (and modelling) since a long time. She was a very familiar face even before Idea Star Singer. Also, she is arguably the most popular "Miss Kerala" too.--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say that she has become very famous through ISS though she hosted some programs. Previously she was also like other Miss keralites who are all a little famous.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church (Lake Worth)

This article violates WP:NOT#NEWS. The current text is unrelated to the article subject. The church has no scandal or controversy in the news and the page is being used for an unencyclopedic purpose - spam? - that does not serve Wikipedia but uses it in an uncharitable and irresponsible way. Mark Foley was not abused at the church. Charles Whitman, whose killing spree is attributed to a brain tumor, was not abused and the news articles about his killing spree do not mention what church he attended as a boy. Each man happened to have once attended the church. The entire church article consists of only this unrelated information and no other information can be found on the web to expand the page. If something is not in the news it is not notable. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious WP:COATRACK article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the church is a notable Lake Worth structure commonly sold on postcards[7][8][9][10], and was mentioned in news articles about both Whitman and Foley. While it is unfortunate there are not yet more details on the church in the article, that doesn't mean the article itself should be deleted. It means we should try to find more details on the church. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COATRACK, POV and sections irrelevant to the article (NOTNEWS). Rest is just a stub. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I also fail to understand how an AFD can begin "This article violates WP:NOT#NEWS..." and end with "If something is not in the news it is not notable..." Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, COATRACK and POV problems. There is nothing interesting said about the church itself. The article is obviously intended to provide a venue for discussing the Whitman and Foley cases. Come back when there is something notable about the church itself that is supported by reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Envision High Schools

While school articles are rarely considered insufficiently notable, this one, right now, is, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:CRYSTAL because these are still in the planning stages. No prejudice against recreation at some later point in time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep based on new information provided to me by TerrierFan and added into the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until implemented, and then, being high schools, they will likely be suitable for inclusion. 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Change to keep, per the substantial difference since last time I saw it. Nicely referenced. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't very clear, but from the website it looks like Envision is already operating some charter schools, just not all that are planned.--Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:N at present, but may satisfy the criteria for inclusion when the schools are actually encompassed by EHS. Littleteddy (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep after information provided by TerrierFan persuaded me to change my comment. Littleteddy (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward eventual re-creation when this leaves the scope of WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant; they are operating 4 high schools now. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think that there is some misunderstanding above. This is a management body for charter high schools akin to a school district. They have been operating since June 2002 and presently manage three schools with five more planned. We have always regarded schools management bodies as notable and there are plenty of sources here from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an extremely notable effort that has established and is seeking to expand a network of charter schools in the San Francisco area. This is NOT a high scool; it is more comparable to a school district. This is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL issue; the organization exists, the school's exists, and more are on their way. As demonstrated by the ample reliable and verifiable sources included in the article -- including documentation of over $10 million in "investments" from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation since 2003 -- the Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. I would strongly suggest that all those who had voted delete, based on an utterly false understanding of the program, should revisit the article and reconsider their vote. Alansohn (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editing by TerriersFan and Alansohn has clarified what Envision is, and notability appears pretty clear now.--Kubigula (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is enough to make this organisation notable. Terraxos (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean parliamentary election, 2008

Due to the lack of information avaliable, it seems pointless to have created this page. I am nominating this for deletion and then it can be recreated later next year when the candidates who run actually announce. Davidpdx (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-formed stub (templates, etc.) for an event certain to happen in just 124 days. Why bother with process when it's this close? --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Why bother? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, it's properly formatted adn will obviously be filled with more information as we go along. Nick mallory (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand past a substub. —dima /talk/ 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no point in deleting just to recreate in a few days. This is a confirmed, notable, future event. If it was the 2020 election, or something like that it would be different. But this is clearly a notable event. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, I guess. Maxa megalon 2000 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this is crystal ball gazing, and I am about to say that other stuff exists, a recent AfD passed as 'keep' (but with a name change to Next Australian federal election). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. Littleteddy (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is about very important future event in South Korea. --Appletrees (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is always useful to have articles about upcoming elections, in order to invite people to put information in them. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since if it's not there people might not bother to create the article, and people will expand on this article soon since it is almost 2008.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 22:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with kudos to Edison for finding solid sources. Hopefully, someone will use them to reference and improve the article.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etsy

Does not establish notability of website and seems to be mostly promotional and collection of external links. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. After quite a bit of searching, I cannot find any independent secondary coverage. spryde | talk 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent reilable sources found either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless someone can find sources I can't... There's nothing out there to reference for this article. Furthermore, seems spammy, possible speedy deletable as db-spam... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep(edited) Has anyone heard of Google News? It is a great place to check whether something has multiple coverage in reliable sources, as Etsy does [11]. See Cox News service, a wire service: [12]. See CNET Asia: [13]. See the Wall Street Journal (subscription, substantial coverage): [14]. There are many more behind paywalls per the Google News search. Etsy has a great many such reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying notability. See coverage in the New York Times, for instance [15] [16] , along with several articles in Business Week (example [17]) and numerous regional newspapers. The paragraph in Wired [18] would seem to be substantial coverage in a reliable source as well. See the International Herald Tribune [19]. There are many more sources which can be used to improve the article and which more than satisfy the notability requirement. Edison (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And someone else DOES... Well done Edison... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An episode of Inside the Net with Leo Laporte and Amber MacArthur featured the site also. Definitely one of the more notable crafting sites out there. Nate · (chatter) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though there are reliable secondary sources, I'm saying delete because certain statements read like an ad ('...you must pounce quick, before the item you want is gone!'? 'These tools are unique and new to online shopping.'?). Littleteddy (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising language can be fixed by editing, a total lack of reliable sources (after searches) cannot. Since there are sources there's nothing stopping anyone from running a knife through the offending material this very minute. Unless the article is so offensive it needs bleaching and rewriting from scratch deletion should be a final option. Someone another (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this source alone (found by Edison) is an excellent future cite, passes WP:N. Someone another (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete this was a recreation of Bruce Rusty Lang, which was speedy deleted last night.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B. Rusty Lang

Article about a non-notable doctor who co-authored a paper which was published in a scientific journal. Only source is said article. Clamster 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a quick search it looks like Mer Lang is an unsuccessful Republican senate candidate in the US. Open Secrets information --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, likely WP:COATRACK behind posting the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a paper, it's a highly opinionated letter, to the editor of a scientific journal. For those with institutional subscriptions to JSTOR it can be read here. I've listed this in the academics and educators deletion-sorting project, as he signs that letter with an affiliation of the Department of Community Medicine and the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Baylor, but I have no more idea than that what the precise nature of his affiliations with those departments was; Google turns up very little connecting him in any other way to Baylor and he doesn't say much about it in his AOL homepage. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. Note the conflict of interest: the creator is Dr. B. R. Lang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hutchings

An article about a person and a myspace campaign related to him. Besides two myspace links, there is an article from a newspaper about the subject taking part in a martial arts competition unrelated to the myspace campaign. Lacks nobility. Clamster 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, negligible ghits. JJL (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This movement must be quite new, because from the picture (which should also be deleted), this guy looks pretty young. Not notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article for a MySpace group, not really a bio. Fails WP:BIO and WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion only for non-notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. —dima /talk/ 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E - only notable for one event. Littleteddy (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, looks like a speedy candidate. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was garbage. DS (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea urchin bird

This article appears to a hoax. The sources included, as far as I can tell, are not specifically about the subject and appear unreliable. Clamster 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not a shred of evidence for the veracity of this topic. 5 Ghits, 3 of which are irrelevant typos, the other two of which are this article and a wikimirror. Skomorokh ^incite 03:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant hoax; a Google search reveals no relevant information. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course it's a hoax. Nick mallory (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the references given mention a "sea urchin bird" in them. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of games supporting force feedback

A list of low importance that cannot be verified. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated since now. Moreover, it's orphan Magioladitis (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment the list except from games contains patches and modifications which makes it impossible to be complete. The creator, Casimps1, in the talk page writes: I created this article because I was looking for such a list myself. I wanted to test out my new FF controllers. After scouring the web, I was able to compile this list and wanted to share it because the information was relatively difficult to track down. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, violates WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Categorise This topic does not seem well supported and deleting this page won't help. All I can find is Haptic which seems a weak treatment of the subject. We should be looking to improve these articles, not taking an axe to them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The creator inevitably has some sources for this list, as shown by the comment above. These sources would probably be patch notes etc, indeed difficult and hard to track down. We should add those sources to the article, and not delete it (see Colonel Warden above). User:Krator (t c) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of information for which WP is a perfect source--the obvious source where everyone will look. if the material is sourced, then its sufficient--the information is more than would fit in a category. There is no rule that a list must be complete--almost no list is, except for historic events. DGG (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But source thoroughly. I agree with DGG above, that this is something that gamers will search for, and Wikipedia is an obvious choice. I would think that sources could be found to verify the games that do support Force Feedback technology, I'm sure IGN or other gaming review sites would have such mentions, so the sourcing shouldn't be too difficult to find. Those with FF controllers would certainly find such a compilation helpful, and while Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, I think this list would compliment both video games and Haptic#Games (force feedback). Ariel♥Gold 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice A. Ramirez

An article about a medical doctor with other certifications and qualifications. The only source is a autobiographical book written by the subject of the article and the subject seems to have little or no nobility. Clamster 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and per WP:BIO, WP:SELFPUB. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The creator of this page added a comment to the talk page of this page and I have moved it below. Clamster 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References being added. Maurice A. Ramirez is notable as the founder of the American Board of Disaster Medicine, an organization created in response to national and international calls for leadership in the medical response to disasters such as hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami. Maryandgreg (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article about him involved with Katrina blacklisted link removed Third party sources seems to be scarce though. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updated references list 10 third party sources including USA Today and Entrepeneur Magazine. The additional references are primarily thrid party verified reporting of data that would in theory be provided by the subject. Reviewing other biographies, the number of references is commencerate and the impact of the subject on the national and international stage justifies the article. Maryandgreg (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly now enough references, & I suspect there are a few more to be found also. The tone needs adjusting to make it more objective. DGG (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep lets be optimistic that the article does develop Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some pretty strong claims to notability, with references to back it up. Surely it needs clean-up and in-line cites, but there is definitely enough there. I have re-written the lead to assert the notability there, and done some minor clean-up. Pastordavid (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others; the tone is promotional but there's something worthy here, looks like. --Lockley (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Meyer

No sources. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO hasn't competed in a fully professional league. Sting_au Talk 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Brian "The Gersh"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Captain Brian "The Gersh"

This one smells wrong. I don't believe a word of it, and whilst I can't directly check any of the cited books, a few of them are available through Google Books and a keyword search for 'brian' or 'gersh' doesn't bring up a thing. This is the original author's sole contributions, and it just screams 'hoax' to me. Shimgray | talk | 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless an actual source can be found. Listed sources Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates and the Anglo-American Maritime World and Sodomy and Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth Century Caribbean are available via Google Books, and neither turns up "The Gersh". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not buying this one. Cites sources but he doesn't seem to be mentioned in them... all the hallmarks of a hoax here. --W.marsh 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete almost certainly a hoax. JJL (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It certainly sounds like a hoax, but there isn't any solid evidence supporting the allegation that it actually is one. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a probable hoax, and also failing the notability guideline re coverage in reliable secondary sources. While a number of book sources are attached to the article, an online search (including a googlebooks search of the books themselves) reveals no mentions of this allegedly famous pirate. Specific references are also false - a full list of pirates mentioned in the first reference can be found here and there is no "the Gersh" among them. A few other telltale signs:

1) there are zero references for the alleged vessels "Guy Porter" or ""Bass Lake", zero references for the extremely detailed family history and the only references for Johnathon Reis are for the 20th century sportsman.

2)His alleged lifespan of 69 years is very long for anyone of his era, let alone a hardliving pirate.

3)His parents cannot have met at Scarborough Fair between 1630-1635 because Scarborough Fair closed in the very early 1600's and didn't reopen until the 1700's.

4) His alleged ship bears a startling resemblance to Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge - built in Britain, captured by French, renamed, converted to pirate vessel, armed with the same number of cannon. His retirement to a quiet plantation bears a startling resemblance to Captain Morgan, the only prominent Caribbean pirate to achieve retirement and die in old age.

5) The crew of "Dutch immigrants" (immigrants to where?) can't pronounce "van Splinter" so they settle for "zee Gersh". Yet "van" as part of a name is of Dutch origin. Presumably these Dutch immigrants didn't speak Dutch. Oddly, they abandoned their immigration to spend 20 years as pirates, too.

5) Gersh's piracy career is so long as to be a kind of miracle, yet he has been "overlooked by historians because of his docile nature"? Blackbeard lasted 4 years, Bartholomew Roberts 2, Stede Bonnet 1 and Captain Morgan an astonishing 10. If there ever was a Captain Gersh, his 20-year career would have made him one of the most famous pirates in the Caribbean. Yet amazingly he is overlooked and completely unreferenced outside of this Wikipedia article.

In short - no sources (fails notability) and a probable hoax (per the holes in the "story"). Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Euryalus's excellent analysis. There's more holes in this story than... something with a heck of a lot of holes in it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete' I see no reason as to why it needs to be deleted. I mean, honestly. It is quite hard to find information on some people. Perhaps, this pirate, is just another one that is difficult to find. Perhaps we must keep it because it is one of the few sources out there. I do not agree with deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoi kiui (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not a source. It's a compilation of information from sources. And - as Euryalus mentioned - the utter lack of information about a pirate whose career lasted a startling 20 years is highly suggestive that he never existed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I read Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition, and don't recall this story, although I may be wrong. Smells fishy. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stein Industries, Inc.

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have very good sources either. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing references are self-refs to held companies and a directory listing. I could not find anything else, other than some very brief (one or two sentence) local business journal notes and more directory/ads. Would love to reconsider if anything substance turns up. Kuru ^talk 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that a private company has been able to survive for 100 years should add to its notability. Also this article has been marked as a stub now, so as more published information about this company becomes available the article can be expanded by other users.--B-money84 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) **Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Corvus cornix_talk[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only sources provided are sales websites that are related to the company. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN advertising Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish anarchists

Completely uncited, offers nothing to the reader beyond Category:Jewish anarchists. Skomorokh ^incite 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the redlinks that are contained within that list. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above, and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Is fine as a category, and it's completely unsourced. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um... It's impossible for the list to both duplicate a category and have red links; if the list included only category members, there wouldn't be any red links. Per WP:CLS, categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" (emphasis in original). The list includes some notable Jewish anarchists whose Wikipedia biographies have yet to be written, which is one of the advantages of a list relative to a category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm conflicted over this article. While I agree that you've outlined one important difference between this list vs the category, I must probe: to what end? If all of the red links were replaced with blue ones; if each subject included were of an existing page, this list would truly serve no purpose. It offers no information divergent of a category. If it were to provide a secondary piece of information that would aid a reader in understanding Jewish anarchists and their history, I'd be all for keeping it. This article leaves me with little to support.--Cast (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We could simply add the redlinks to Wikipedia:Requested articles or somewhere in the Anarchist task force. Skomorokh ^incite 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fair point. Added them to the To do list at Anarchism task force page.--Cast (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Malik Shabazz's argument, the list provides one thing the category cannot; a list of currently non-existent Jewish anarchist biography articles. Other than that, I can't think of a reason to keep it. I'll be saving this list to my sandbox, so that if it is deleted, I'll have a list of Jewish anarchist articles that need to be made.--Cast (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant article, recreate in the future if category needs to be expanded with people that do not have an article. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after further consideration I changed my mind, the list needs to be extended rather than deleted Lord Metroid (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One complete list of anarchist is sufficient. Lord Metroid (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Malik Shabazz. I'd also like to note that as long as these people are cited correctly as having anarchistic beliefs in their own articles, then the list article does not need additional citations. Alun (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malik Shabazz. Maybe it's the inclusionist in me, but I don't see how this list couldn't be improved instead of deleted. Murderbike (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Malik Shabazz. Allixpeeke (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the material is verified. This is a notable conjunction; as Cast says, there are a good many articles to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:31, December 17, 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to provide substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:V and no sources were offered in this discussion. Pigman☿ 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Knight (Forever Knight)

Fails WP:FICT. Character in a single 3 season series (and pilot). Complete plot regurgitation, indeed, it literally gives the entire plot of the show from start to finish, covering every episode, with some added WP:OR. Unsourced, multiple WP:NPOV violations. Failed merge/redirect attempt. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No notability established at the moment, but I bet there are enough sources out there to satisfy if someone were to work on the article a bit more. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep lead character of a multi-season series. JJL (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Cirt. Article should be tagged for cleanup, but the character is more than likely notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep to strongly consider stubbifying/merging outside AFD~~ The main characters of a three-season series often have secondary sources to justify a separate article, although plot regurgitation usually wins out. But that's a cleanup issue where I don't favor AFD unless the article has been heavily tagged for some time. Nick Knight (Forever Knight) is currently just tagged for tone. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change recommendation to redirect or weak delete after reconsideration. Forever Knight#Synopsis is detailed enough, and the character article just repeats it in more detail (so there's nothing worth merging). I am completely open to recreation of the article if it no longer fails WP:FICT as much as it currently does. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable. Bad show with bad acting, but notable. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The show is notable, however notability does not inherit to a single character article and there is no List of Forever Knight characters article to cull down and merge to. Collectonian (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a single character, it's the lead character. Most leads characters have articles of their own. The article certainly needs work, but it's notable enough to stay. --Andromeda (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, notability does not inherit (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument and "most" is a complete exaggeration). Being the lead character does not equal instant notability. WP:RS and WP:V still apply. Character articles are not automatic. It goes in the main first. If the character section gets big enough, then it goes to a List of characters sub article. Only if a specific character has plenty of real-world notability that can be verified by reliable sources should an individual article be considered and that notability should be established on creation, not two years later because all of a sudden the article may get deleted. I love the show, I love Nick, and despite your note in your revert of my earlier attempt to redirect to the main, I don't care about spoilers. The article completely fails WP:FICT and is nothing but pages of plot regurgitation. Collectonian (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work but it's the main character of a 3 season series. It's notable enough.--Andromeda (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to a character list). Fails WP:FICT. Written from a completely in-universe perspective with no assertion of real-world significance. The keep arguments rely on inherited notability. If demonstration can be made that real-world significance exists, it can be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb stomping

Unsourced, possibly WP:NFT VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR, and, given the nature of the gesture, WP:NFT. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICT. As a comment, it is not WP:NFT. There seems to have been an AfD on this before that I cannot find; however, the old page can at least be seen through a google cache. The deleted version was far more encyclopedic than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paiev (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this rings a bell for me too. There's another example of this in The Sopranos. People seem too keen to get rid of this - there isn't even an entry in Wiktionary. So, I'll vote Keep as there's definitely something to be said about this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Unsourced and poorly written. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete as original research and violation of WP:NEO. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ecch! No sources, only notable occurrence is in a Neo-Nazi centric movie featuring the talents of Edward Norton. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Innovative murder techniques are still not necessarily notable because of two appearances in film and television; unclear how the article would develop. Category: Death moves could be cool, though. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Unsourced and written by someone who seems almost enthusiastic about the subject material. And of what benefit to humankind could it possibly be for anyone to know about it? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unfortunately this is a true action/method of crime, try google search to find sources. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is hardly a WP:NFT, it is a well known expression. It's not a very strong instance of WP:OR either. The primary reason for delete that I see would be WP:N. I could easily be swayed to delete with a good argument. -Verdatum (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since no examples of the crime are mentioned other than the memorable scene in American History X, this isn't much of an article. And after American History X, I think that people are less likely to honor a request to rest their face upon a curb. I agree with Alasdair that the author seems to be enthusiastic about the subject. Maybe someone can write about other "really cool" ways to kill another person. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much of an article and seriously does not express any real-world notability (only one actual crime is stated, with no citations or sources). JuJube (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR, but definitely not WP:NFT. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there may be something to be said on it, but the article can be re-created when more sources are found to help us say it. DGG (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American History X, the sole notable example of this maneuver. --Lockley (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curbing basically I wanted to read about the topic and luckly there was something here. Kelly Denham (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 10:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charli Carpenter

Accomplished professor, but wouldn't seem to meet our inclusion guidelines WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No articles about her, just a few casual mentions here and there.[20] W.marsh 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article establishes no notability for what appears to be a regular university lecturer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promising young academic, but nothing notable at this point. --Crusio (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assistant (i.e., non-tenured) professor at a major university, recent ph.d., do not in themselves suggest notability. The field is notable but I can't tell whether Carpenter's work has yet achieved notability. --Lquilter (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. She has two books, and 13 peer-reviewed papers, and a large NSF grant. A $600,000 NSF grant to an asssistant professor is a recognition of notability. I filled in the article, which left out a good deal. DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Crusio and Lquilter. The level of accomplishment mentioned by DGG is good, a sign of a successful academic career, but not to my mind quite enough yet for our standards of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assistant prof, the papers are average output. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point, I simply do not feel that anything in this article meets the standards of WP:PROF. I do not feel that a grant counts as an award or honor, I'm afraid. SorryGuy Talk 08:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Note: Non-admin Closure[reply]

Judith Jacobs

Non-notable county politician. Ridernyc (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep county politicians are notable enough to get a category; as head of the legislature, she seems notable. Shiva_eVolved 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nassau County is big enough for all of its county commissioners to be considered inherently notable. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:BIO. " * Politicians :Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislator. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

nothing about size of the locality. Also statewide seems to be as low as the automatic notability will go. Ridernyc (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- At this point, I am invoking WP:IAR. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the category — it's not been tested at XFD nor listed on a policy page as sufficient — there's nothing that makes her automatically notable. Loving County, Texas had 67 people at the last census, and the List of counties in Texas says that all Texas counties have a government of five elected politicians — does this mean that 7.5% of all residents in the county are inherently notable, plus those who have held the office in the past? Or any of them, perhaps the judge, who's elected countywide, just one of the 67, but surely being the chief of a local group of legislators doesn't make one notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Despite the lack of sources, such a prominent person should have plenty of sources available to demonstrate notability, despite not having an inherently notable position. Todd Portune is obviously notable, despite being only a county commissioner (analogous to being a member of a NY county legislature) in Ohio. Provide sources to demonstrate notability, and surely this article would be keepable. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established within the article, lack of sourcing, WP:V/WP:RS, etc. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment as far sources a google search shows what you would expect, tons of general directory listings, a few listing in random legal documents, and few blogish type people writing about her. Google news get a total of 15 hits, all of the stories are the run of your mill local stories for example "Storm brews over vote for Nassau budget overseer". Ridernyc (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remotely borderline about this local politician. Falls below the WP:BIO threshold. The county has a duty to post her bio, but the sheer lack of independent sources is a concern. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Weak Keep per Alansohn[reply]
Weak Keep Highest legislative official in a county of 1.3 million people is a strong claim of notability. Ample sources exist in The New York Times and in other publications, with this Google News Archive Search finding 48 articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb. WP:BIO acknowledges that exceptions exist to its guidelines. --Goobergunch|? 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Current high-ranking elected official in a county of well over 1 million people. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As stated above by myself and others, we should look into the spirit of the policy stated in WP:BIO for politicians instead of its exact wording. Because if we go strictly by how it is worded, then we must make the illogical conclusion that, while Judith Jacobs must establish her notability in some way other than by being county commissioner, Paul Okalik is inherently notable with maybe 25% of Jacobs's responsibilities. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Blanchardb (except the bit about WP:IAR - that's just silly). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xocotl

No such god. Someone is apparently confused with Xocotl Huetzi, the name of a festival. I can find no verification for this on Google Books except "The Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons", which does not seem especially reliable. Ptcamn (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been an Otomi god (aka Otontecutli) very similar to Huitzilopochtli and subsequently assimilated. xocotl+otomi brings a few Google Books hits. In other words I find enough corroboration of the source you find doubtful to eliminate my doubts. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see that source and raise you ~~four~~ five that say it's a classification of fruit. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems to suggest that it can also refer to a deity. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article in the Gale Encyclopedia of Religion ("Sacrament: An Overview", p. 7957) refers to Xocotl as a "tree god". Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this was one, but I'll go with the fruit. We don't have anything on the Otomi gods right now that I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Shiva_eVolved 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, and adequate sourcing in article, though could use expansion. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sourcing and establishing notability is good. Expansion/cleanup would be good for this article too. PrestonH 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Could use some expansion, but it's properly sourced, and has good potential. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (no strong consensus to delete). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion in the Park

Spammy page on a mall in Arkansas. A search for reliable sources turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pavilion in the Park is not a mall. It is a very notable upscale shopping center that is unique in our state. I haven't had the chance to research it properly and expand the article. Just because you can't Google something doesn't mean it isn't important. --The_stuart (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Stupid Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep article makes claims of notability, with reliable sources provided. Article would benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per stuart. Shiva_eVolved 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete upscale shopping center is essentially a marketing term for a mall. Not sure if the claims of being unique are just marketing. Most descriptions seem to contradict the idea of it being either unique or upscale. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and lack of adequate sourcing in the article. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep With reliable sources provided in a article along with the notability of the article, it does have the potential to expand. Give the article some time to expand by other editors like sourcing, copyediting, etc. PrestonH 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One very small source that could be argued is a little trivial. --Neon white (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should find other souces then, and if in no condition it hasn't improved in months then delete. But for right now, keep. PrestonH 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NB The deletion points can and should be addressed by proper editing of the article. Tyrenius (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadism and masochism in fiction

Directory/trivia collection, with some entries and the lede fleshed out slightly with unsourced original research. Important works are already listed in BDSM#Culture_and_media, so this can be deleted outright. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. This topic is certainly notable and potentially informative. Although it is unsourced OR, it is not simply a list, but rather gives rationales and explanations for entries, nor is it entirely popcruft, with relevant notable entries. With a rigorous sourcing, this would be a very worthy article. Skomorokh ^incite 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say that the article is unsourced original research. Unsourced original research must be deleted, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:No original research policy, note. You have just made an argument for deletion, irrespective of the boldface word that you have prefixed it with. If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, cite some sources. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest interested editors have a look at the many sources available at [21] [22] for starters. Since the nominator's argument is now rebutted, can we expect it to be withdrawn? Hiding T 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a set of search engine results, not a source citation. To do research, one has to actually read the things that Google turns up. Most of those papers have nothing to do with this subject. Colonel Warden below actually points to a specific paper by name. That is a citation. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest you re-read my comment if you want to start an argument. I won't defend myself against a point I didn't make. I'm well versed in citations, I include them in almost every article I edit. Maybe you need to refresh yourself as to our Wikipedia:Editing policy? Hiding T 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your pointing to the editing policy is a red herring to divert the discussion. Your statement of being well versed is belied by the fact that in response to a challenge to cite sources you didn't cite a source. You linked to a set of search engine results, claiming them to be sources when most of them (as I said) have nothing to do with this subject at all, and wholly ignoring the fact that Google doesn't present the same results to everyone. A hyperlink to a set of Google search results is not a citation. I've pointed you to Wikipedia:Citing sources once already. Please read it. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and complete lack of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Seems to be a good foundation for an article - just needs more text upon the framework of the examples which seem to be well chosen. Sourcing and notability is currently adequately addressed by the many blue links. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Where is the existing published analysis, outside of Wikipedia, that ties all of those subjects together under this banner? Cite some sources doing such analysis, and you will have properly rebutted the nominator's argument. As of now, you haven't, and neither does the article (which cites no sources at all). Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seemed obvious that this subject would be well-covered by many sources. So let's start with Google Scholar search for Sadism and masochism in fiction. There's 2390 hits and just the first of them Literary Trauma: Sadism, Memory, and Sexual Violence in American Women's Fiction is enough to tell me that we needn't go further to decide this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly wouldn't object to a new, well-sourced article on this subject, if that is what you are proposing. Are you up to writing it? The subject is fairly notable, but the existing framework (so to speak) guarantees further unsourced appends, not a well-edited, well-sourced article. Nothing appended to this article in the past year has been deleted, so I don't see evidence of any editorial oversight of this article at this time. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WP:WPTPC list of Articles facing deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be just another case of deleting "... in Popular Culture". Some of the nominated articles are good, and some are not, and its up to our consensus to decide which to keep. I feel the subject is important enough and has enough material to stand on its own. It's really more of a cross-reference than a WP:DIRECTORY issue; similar lists and categories are a useful part of Wikipedia. I don't understand why "Original Research" keeps being mentioned though. There isn't any inappropriate opinion in this article, and the works listed are pretty obvious examples. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it's one of our content policies, that applies to every article. And "X in Y" articles are magnets for original research, when editors add what they personally consider to be examples of X in Y, and start growing folk lists of X in Y constructed firsthand by Wikipedia editors, rather than examples of X in Y that have actually been documented as such by reliable sources, and writing a verifiable encyclopaedia article without original research about X in Y. "But it's obvious!" is not a defence against adding novel analysis to Wikipedia. To advance the position that W is an example of X in Y, a source must be given that analyses W in such terms. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that the terms "sadism" and "masochism" actually came _from_ fiction, from the works of De Sade and von Sacher-Masoch. That might make a strong argument for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted in other articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Themes and basic plots are notable aspects of fiction . This is a notable theme. The bulk f the examples range from notable to extremely notable. Most of them will have books or articles or reviews written about them, and using a little common sense, any book or article or review written about one of these will certainly discuss the theme. What more is needed? I don;'t see what's OR, except looking in a book and seeing what its about--fiction is an acceptable primary source for information about its plot & other contents. Perhaps the most absurd of all recent ipc nominations. The apparent reason for given is that some of the material is also covered in other articles. That holds for anything almost in wikipedia. For example, we have articles of books and also on authors. On Edison and electricity--and so on. Agree or disagree, I can account for many of the POVs concerning certain types of WP articles. I have never been able to understand the basis of the ipc one. I probably have insufficient lack of imagination. :) DGG (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per apparent consensus above and because it is referenced and concerns a notable topic. Scholarly references include: [23]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The argument that this article is a redundant fork of the list page has not been refuted, and is supported by most commenters below. Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of the 52 multiverse

There is nothing inherently notable about the modern 52 multiverse from a real-world perspective that requires containment on a separate page from List of DC Multiverse worlds or Multiverse (DC Comics) for that matter. The Multiverse itself is notable as a publishing annd continuity concept, and if only for sake of comprehensiveness and to make its usage evident, it is important that these are listed. What we have here, unfortunately is an in-universe explanation of the Multiverse which is better suited to the DC database project on Wikia~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This material seems covered better in List of DC Multiverse worlds#The 52. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many, many pages on wikipedia refer to specific of these worlds. This page allows linking directly to information on each of those worlds, rather than a table which by necessity has to contain a limited amount of information. The page makes wikipedia work better. I'll admit that the page has flaws, it's starter, it lacks a real world perspective, it lacks a lot of citing, but that's because it is a work in progress. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describe it's real world notability, independent of the larger topic.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world notability is important, and I'd like to improve that in this article, but is it reason enough to delete it, after all:

Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.

The page is not notable in and of it self, but rather because of the combined notability of the entries. It's 50-plus semi-notable snubs the some of which are greater than the whole.

It's the usage of this page, which I think makes it needed. Go to a page like Alternate versions of Wonder Woman (theres one of Batman and Superman, and it's a section on most DC heroes page). The use on that page is what makes this page necessary. Otherwise you get things like Earth-S which unceremonially dumps you at the top of a multiverse page.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You add a smidgin of context, such as "on Earth-S (the home dimension of the Fawcett Comics characters)...", or "the Superman of Earth-2 (depicted as the Superman appearing in the 1940s pubications Action Comics)..." or "on Earth-15, a world where many junior heroes have replaced their mentors..." The word Multiverse is already linked above so they have the encycopedic history of the concept anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this way, you don't need to add the context - which can be clunky, not always as helpful as the editor would like and digresses from the flow of the sentence/article.

The advantage that wikipedia has over a print encylopedia is the ability to link words directly to other articles.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason we need to articles on the exact same subject. Ridernyc (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other article, or rather the section of it with the table of the 52 multiverse is flawed by the fact that it is restricted to a table. The article itself has been locked because of a slow edit war because some people are trying to force necessary information into the table, and others (esp myself) are trying to remove information so the table is readable.

The table is a great overview of the multiverse, but it doesn't fully serve the needs of wikipedia like this page does.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so fix that article, there is no reason we need 2 articles. Ridernyc (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other article's problem is the tendency for people to skew its focus onto in-universe details. Summarise the universe, give a first appearance, maybe some distinctive details and where possible who is credited as "creating" this universe, for instance Grant Morrison designed Earth-10, and Earth-22 is based on Alex Ross's story. It doesn't matter if the boxes get bloated - they will be large in the solicitation stage, but once they've made published appearances their content can be summarised. Duggy 1138, I admire what you're trying to do here, and I think you'd appreciate that on the DC Database project there's an actual entire article to devoted to each of these alternate Earths.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if anything appears on the DC Database Project there's no room for it here?

I like your description of the table on a section of the other page, and hope that it does turn out that way. This page, as you and others can see it completely different to that. Hense there is no duplication.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus should be hammered out on List of DC Multiverse worlds instead of working around it by creating a duplicate article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a duplicate page. The corresponding section on the other page is and can only be a summary page, which is why this page is necessary.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these worlds become notable enough in their own right, they'll get their own articles, which can be linked to from the list. Until then, I see no reason why a summary isn't adequate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a gap between summary and notability, and this page fills that gap.

Because no matter how much information is in the summary, the link isn't as affective as a direct link to this page.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons, some mentioned above:

It is recreation of content from List of DC Multiverse worlds.
For all appearances it was created to avoid working with that list either by continuing to work for a consensus or revamping/cleaning the list.
It is all but devoid of context out side of in-universe material, and there is precious little in-universe context as well.
No cited references at all offered for what textual information is there, or for the characters.
As pointed out in the brief discussion at Talk:List of DC Multiverse worlds the structure created caters to fancruft. Specifically an index of appearances for the various universes and a "role call" of characters.
There is a reliance on "fan knowledge" and "fan assumption" to include characters that have as of yet made explicit appearances in the post-52 multiverse, much less having been identified to a specific universe.
There are already existing articles that would be natural choices as "homes" for more expanded information, reducing the usefulness of this article, as well as any spurious "Universe" articles, at the current time.

- J Greb (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Created from, but developing into more. (I hope).

2. I was working with that list, and still would be if it wasn't locked, but I realised there was only so much that list could do and a page was needed.

3. Working on that. Help if you can.

4. Yeah, I sort of copied and pasted and lost a lot of those. Help if you can.

5. I've been trying to delete those wherever possible. I agree. These aren't the previous worlds, we shouldn't make assumptions.

6. Yes, initially true. Working on that. Help if you can.

7. Agreed, in some cases. If these worlds are around after Final Crisis, then there may be some that deserve there own page. There are already some that have a solid or improvable section on another page, and I'm adding "mainpage" links and trying to prove those pages where possible. If all could be moved, great, let's delete this page and move on. But some don't have another place yet and some may never be big enough to get there own.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short form — not a lot of time atm...

Point 2) You created this one before that one was locked. The lock was, IIUC, the result of bold editing in lieu of actually continuing to work on the talk page.

Points 1, 3, and 4) All point to redundancy. If all you could start with, and all you could come up with was to cut and paste, then this article is not needed.

Point 7) That's crystal balling, at best. Right now there isn't much more than what can, or could, be said on the other list for most of the entries. Just because Wiki ain't paper doesn't mean we get to create article because A) they may be warranted/fleshed out at a later time or to facilitate such articles.

- J Greb (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Yes, I was working on that list and still would be if it wasn't locked. The lock was because of a slow edit war which I was a part of. I'm the last person in the threads on the discussion page... so it's the other side of the argument refusing the work on the talk page.

1, 3, 4: Everything needs a starting point, and I used that page. It's developed a long way since then, and, I hope, will develop a lot further. I believe that a lot of the people talking about redundancy haven't really compared the pages at all.

It's not crystal balling. This page is needed now. The Countdown Arena page, many character pages, et al, need something to link to to explain the worlds they're talking about. The predictions I made are that in the future this page may not be necessary. But at the moment it is.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my original remarks, which caused you to need this clarification.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's easier to work on an article in a sandbox off of your talk page and get it to a semi-polished state. That is, something more than a skeleton with a few obvious cut-n-paste sections. You started on that path, but moved to a live page before you had something more than a replication of content.

And you were fairly clear. And your reiteration underscores it. This is a redundant "backbone" article. The articles which are currently mentioning the post-52 Earths already have the wikilink resources, foremost among those being List of DC Multiverse worlds and Multiverse (DC Comics). This list of reference articles also includes the "prominent" universes such as Earth-Two and Earth-Three, where characters such as Alan Scott and Ultraman (comics) should point. As far as lesser characters go, for example the Starwoman of Earth-7, having the explanation as part of an "Alternate versions" section on Courtney Whitmore (comics) with links to the existing mutiverse article is eminently more practical than having it say nothing and link here with equally nothing to say. That is of curse unless there is an inherent assumption that Earth-7 is going to be important enough to expand the section or warrant it's own article. That is crystal balling.

Lastly, for the post-52 that are patterned after specific Elseworlds or imaginary stories, the same practice as for the lesser/cameo character renders this article redundant. Have an AV section added to Kingdom Come (comic book) that explains Earth-22 and then link the table line from the existent list article to that specific section. - J Greb (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried the Sandbox thing, but it wasn't getting me far. I felt it needed to kick that multiple contributors adds when it becomes a real page. If I did wrong, I appologise.

It certainly was a redundant backbone article, but I think it's beyond that now. You seem to disagree.

On Earth-7, yes, this page doesn't say much... there isn't much to say. But it doesn't say nothing. It says that it's the home of a Courtney. And that's all it is. On a "Alternate Version of Courtney" section there's no way to say that the same way that this link can.

On specific existing notable universe, yes, a section on the existing page is a better. Which is why when one exists (Such as Earth-Two), I've linked it as a "main page". I'm happy to remove as much information as possible. But not all the worlds are going to be notable or have notable ascendants. And it's for them that this page exists.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current table used elsewhere is not sufficient to cover all the material, and as more "trivial knowledge" is made available, there will need to be an ACTUAL article within which to capture the bits and pieces into a coherent whole. Isn't that what you guys do? The current "52" article would become unwieldy if you include all this information within it. If you delete this now, you will only have to duplicate these efforts later. Removing "trivia" (like from which world Monitor Bob calls home) is foolhardy and rash. Far better to put a notation at the top of the page saying this is a work in progress rather than delete it outright. I'm growing tired of seeking out information in Wiki only to find that someone before me deemed said information unnecessary for me to find. Let the reader be the judge of that! What? Are you guys running out of webpages or something? Sheesh! ZachsMind (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of DC Multiverse worlds. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page is useful as an overview to the subject of the DC multiverse in a specific context of the 52 storyline. As a reader of DC comics, it is often hard to keep track of how the multiverse is and has been organized in the past. This page is a good start. But, it is insufficient to cover the topic. Really, each earth should have its own page. Then each earth can have subsections that explain the context within the various time periods within the DC comics continuity. In the case of the earths that are major players(Earth 1,2,3,5) it makes sense to have specific entries for pre-crisis and 52-onward. If somebody is able to organize the relationships, it would be useful. The elseworld continuities that have become integrated into the main continuity also could use some serious documentation. jreskus2 (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Jreskus2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Void. Not a valid reason for why it belongs on Wikipedia. Expand to your heart's content, where it can receive as serious and comprehensive a documentation as it may deserve.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. Expansion could be made to existing page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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